In May 1939, a ship called the San Luis He left for Hamburg, Germany, with 937 passengers, most Jews flee from the Holocaust. They had promised landing rights in Cuba, but when the ship arrived in Havana, the government refused to let him do. The passengers made desperate supplications to the United States, even directly to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to allow them to enter. Roosevelt never responded. The State Department sent again that they should “wait for their turn” and enter legally.
As if that were a realistic option available for them.
After stopping on the coast of Florida with the hope of a merciful decision of Washington, St. Louis and his passengers returned to Europe, where the Nazis were on the fly. Finally, 254 of the ship's passengers died in the Holocaust.
In response to this shameful failure to provide protection, the nations of the world joined and drafted an international treaty to protect those fleeing persecution. The treaty, the 1951 refugee conventionand his 1967 protocolhas been ratified by More than 75% of the nations, including the United States.
Because the tragedy of St. Louis was fresh in the minds of the editors of the treaty, they included an unequivocal prohibition to return to refugees fleeing countries where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” It is understood that this prohibits sending them to a country where they would face these threats, in addition to sending them to a country that would later send them to a third country where they would be at such a risk.
All countries that are parts of the Convention and Protocol related to refugee status are subject to this return prohibition (commonly mentioned by their translation into French, “not referred to”). In the United States, Congress promulgated the 1980 refugee law, expressly adopting the language of the treaty. The United States is also a party for Convention against torturethat prohibits the return of people to places where they would be in danger of “being subjected to torture.”
In both Trump administrations, there have been multiple ways in which the President has tried to eviscerate and undermine the protections guaranteed by the obligation of the Treaty and the Law of the United States. The most drastic between these measures has been almost total. Closing of the border to asylum seekers and the Entrance suspension of refugees already approved and examined.
However, none of these measures has appeared so clearly designed to make fun of the Second World War II Refugee Protection Framework such as the Administration proposals and attempts to send US migrants Libya and Rwanda.
Although there are situations in which the United States could legally send to a migrant to a third country, it would still be obliged by the obligation not to return the person to a place where their “life or freedom would threaten themselves.” The elections of Libya and Rwanda, instead of, for example, Canada or France, can only be read as an intentional and open ram of that prohibition.
Libya is known for her abuse of migrantswith a generalized imposition of torture, sexual violence, forced labor, hunger and slavery. The main defense groups as Amnesty International call it “Hellscape”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has declared in non -uncertain terms that Libya is Not being considered a third safe country For migrants. The United States is clearly aware of the conditions there; The State Department issued its Highest warning level for Libyaadvising against Libya due to crime, terrorism, civil disturbances, kidnapping and armed conflict.
Although the conditions in Rwanda are not so extreme, the Supreme Court of both Israel and the United Kingdom I have ruled that the agreements to send migrants to Ruanda are illegal. The two countries had tried to outsource their refugee obligations by calling Rwanda a “third safe country” to which asylum seekers could be sent to request protection.
Israel and the highest courts in the United Kingdom found that Rwanda, unlike their declared commitment when entering these agreements, in fact he had refused to consider the asylum claims of migrants and, on the other hand, routinely expelled them, which resulted in his return to the countries of persecution, in direct violation of the prohibition of the reform. The United Kingdom Court He also cited the poor human rights history of Rwanda, including “extrajudicial murders, deaths in custody, forced disappearances and torture.”
If the Trump administration had a minimum commitment to fulfill its international and national legal obligations, the plans to send migrants to Libya or Rwanda would be non -dizzy. But the plans are very alive, and it is not crazy to assume that their intention is In addition, refugee protection standards undermine Quotes to World War II. Why do you choose the two countries that have been repeatedly indicated for violating refugee rights?
As in Israel and the United Kingdom, there will be judicial challenges if the United States advances with its proposed plan to send migrants to Libya and Rwanda. It is difficult to imagine a court that may rule that the United States would not breach its legal obligation not reference by giving migrants to these two countries.
That said, and despite the clear language of the treaty and the statute, it has become increasingly difficult to predict how the courts will govern when the Supreme Court has issued decisions Long -term flying preceding, And the lower courts have reached diametrically opposite Positions on some of the most controversial immigration problems.
In times like these, we should not depend solely on the courts. There are many of us here in the United States that we believe it is worth fighting for the world's refugee framework, developed in response to the deep moral failure of returning to St. Louis. We need to take a vocal position. The clear message must be that those fleeing persecution should never be returned to persecution.
If we take that position, we will be in the good company of those who survived the holocaust And continue talking about him Rights of all refugees.
Karen Musalo is a law teacher and founding director of the Center for Gender Studies and refugees at UC Law, San Francisco. She is also co -author of “Law and refugee policy: a comparative and international approach.”
