In May 1939, a ship called St. Louis Leaving from Hamburg, Germany, with 937 passengers, most of them Jews who stayed from Holocaust. They were promised to give up Cuba, but when the ship arrived in Havana, the government refused to allow it. Passengers have made the desperate US supplements, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to allow them to enter. Roosevelt was not answered. The State Department explodes they should “wait for their turn” and enter legally.
As that is a realistic choice available for them.
After the delay on the shores of Florida hoping for a merciful decision from Washington, the St. Louis and its passengers returned to Europe, where the Nazis continued to march. Finally, 254 of the passengers on the ship died in the Holocaust.
In response to the embarrassing failure to provide protection, the country’s countries unite and draft an international agreement to protect fleding persecutions. The treaty, the 1951 convention of refugeesand it is 1967 Protocolratted in more than 75% in countries, including the United States.
Because the tragedy of St. Louis Fresh on the thoughts of drawty drayvters, they include an uneven restriction on the return of refugees in countries where their “freedom or freedom can be threatened.” It is understood that it is forbidden to send them to a country where they will face these threats, as well as to send it to a country to send it to a third country where they are at risk.
All countries of convention and protocol related to the condition of refugees tied to this restriction (usually mentioned in the French translation, “bad”). In the US, Congress has carried out the 1980’s work of refugees, which clearly adopted the Treaty language. US is also a party to Convention Youngto prohibit the return of individuals in areas where they can be dangerous “subjected to torture.”
In both Trump administrations, there are many ways in which the President attempted to evacuate and destroy protections that are guaranteed in the obligation of the agreement and law. The maximum number of these steps is close closing the border to asylum searchers and the Suspension of entry to be approved and moved refugees.
However, no one of these measures appeared clearly designed to make a joke in the post-World War II Refugche protection popular and TESTS Send migrants from US to book and Rwanda.
Although there are circumstances in which US can be firmly sending a migrant a third country, it can still be the obligation not to return the person in a place where their “life or freedom is threatening.” Libyan and Rwanda options – instead, for example, Canada or France – can only be read as a deliberate and open ban on that restriction.
Libya is famous for this Abuse of migrantsWith widespread torture, sexual violence, compulsory work, hunger and slavery. Leading adbokasya groups such as Amnesty International Call a “Hellscape.” The United Nations High Commissioner for refugees did not say no insecure terms Libya is not considered a safe third country for migrants. The US clearly aware of the circumstances there; The State Department has issued this Highest level of warning for Libyaadvised against Libya travel due to crime, terrorism, civil disorder, kidnapping and armed conflict.
Although Rwanda conditions are not as intense, the Supreme Court of two Israel and the United Kingdom It rules that agreements to send rwanda migrants are unlawful. The two countries attempt to outsource their refugee obligations by calling Rwanda is a “safe third country” where asylum seekers can be sent for protection.
Israel and the highest court of the UK found that Rwanda – contrary to its stated commitment to enter these agreements – actually expelled by the persecution of persecution, in direct violation of refusing. The UK court Rwanda’s bad record is also quoted, including “extrajudicial killings, custody death, implemented disappearance and torture.”
If the Trump administration has a small commitment to follow international international and domestic legal obligations, plans to send migrants to Libya or Rwanda to be a nonsternter. But plans are alive, and it doesn’t get made up of thinking their goal is Further harms internationally approved by refugee protection behaviors Dating World War II. Why choose two countries often chosen for violating rights of refugee?
Like Israel and in the UK, there are court challenges that the US should continue with the proposed shipping plan of Libya and Rwanda migrants. It is difficult to imagine a court that may rule that the US cannot break its legal obligation to non-migrants in two countries.
As it says, and despite the clear language of the agreement and law, it is more difficult to predict how the courts have been released Decisions Enable long-accepted mainly, and the lower courts came to mayametrically UNLAWFUL Position some of the most satisfied immigration issues.
In times like this, we should not trust only courts. There are many of us here in the US who believes the framework of refugees in the world – developed in response to the deep moral failure in St. Louis – The fight is worth it. We need to take a voice voice. The specified message should be those who have broken persecutions should not be returned to persecution.
If we make such a stand, we will be in good company with Who has endured the Holocaust and continue to speak for Rights of all refugees.
Karen Musalo is a Professor of Law and Director of Building Center for Gender Studies and Refugees in UC Law, San Francisco. He also leads the co-author of “refugee law: a comparison and international approach.”
