Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE





The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: Refugee, Asylum, and Related Legislation in the US Congress: 2013–2016 By Tara Magner

    Refugee, Asylum, and Related Legislation in the US Congress: 2013–2016

    by


    [Note: This is an excerpt from the paper: Refugee, Asylum, and Related Legislation in the US Congress: 2013–2016 published in the Center for Migration Studies’ (CMS’s) Journal on Migration and Human Security. Read the entire article here.]

    Executive Summary

    Members of Congress have introduced numerous pieces of legislation in recent years related to refugees, asylum seekers, and other populations of migrants seeking protection in the United States. These bills were drafted in reaction to dramatic events within the United States, at its borders, and around the world. For example, roughly 400,000 children traveling alone and mothers with children have arrived at the southern US border since 2013, many seeking protection from organized crime, gang violence, and threats of human trafficking. Similarly, more than a million refugees from the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia sought to reach safety on the European continent in 2015 alone. Terrorist attacks fueled attempts to curtail the US commitment to offer protection to those fleeing persecution, even when those attacks had no connection to refugees or only tenuous links. And yet existing US law has been left virtually unchanged throughout this tumultuous period. This article describes the significant attempts to enact legislation related to refugees and international migrants since 2013 and examines the reasons why those attempts have not succeeded. It also describes American attitudes toward refugees and assesses whether those attitudes affected the fate of legislation.

    Introduction

    This paper documents and explores a conundrum: In an era of unprecedented and rising levels of forced migration, the politicization of humanitarian protection, and pervasive security concerns, US laws related to refugees, asylum seekers, and other forced migrants have remained largely unchanged.

    Since 2013, members of Congress have introduced numerous bills related to refugees and other forced migrants, often in reaction to dramatic events within the United States, at its borders, and around the world. For example, roughly 400,000 children traveling alone and mothers with children, have arrived at the southern US border since 2013, most seeking protection from organized crime, gang violence, and threats of human trafficking. Similarly, more than a million refugees from the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia sought to reach safety on the European continent in 2015 alone. Terrorist attacks fueled attempts to curtail the US commitment to offer protection to those fleeing persecution, even when those attacks had no connection to refugees or only tenuous links. And yet existing US law has remained fundamentally intact through this tumultuous period. This paper describes the significant attempts to enact legislation related to refugees and forced migrants since 2013 and examines the reasons why those attempts have not succeeded. It also describes American and global attitudes toward refugees and assesses whether those attitudes affected the fate of legislation…

    [Note: This is an excerpt from the paper: Refugee, Asylum, and Related Legislation in the US Congress: 2013–2016 published in the Center for Migration Studies’ (CMS’s) Journal on Migration and Human Security. Read the entire article here.]

    © 2016 by the Center for Migration Studies of New York. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission.


    About The Author

    Tara Magner is Director of the Chicago Commitment at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The views expressed herein are solely the author’s, expressed in her personal capacity, and do not reflect the views of the MacArthur Foundation.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: