Skip to main content

In the most recent Law & Society Review

Reconfiguring the Deserving Refugee: Cultural Categories of Worth and the Making of US Asylum Policy

Talia Shiff
Lecturer on Sociology
Postdoctoral Fellow, Weatherhead Scholars Program
Harvard University

Talia Shiff

Contemporary US asylum policy is characterized by two seemingly contradictory developments: on the one hand, increasing restrictions placed on the admission of immigrants and asylum seekers, and on the other hand a growing acceptance of a new set of asylum claims involving previously unrecognized forms of gender-related harms. In Reconfiguring the Deserving Refugee: Cultural Categories of Worth and the Making of US Asylum Policy, Talia Shiff sets  to explain this puzzle: how is it that during a period of growing hostility towards asylum seekers at large, there is an increasingly inclusive approach towards non-conventional gender-based claims such as rape, female genital cutting and domestic violence that do not involve standard forms of government-sponsored persecution of well-recognized political, religious and ethnic minorities?
 Analysis of interviews with high level asylum officials, asylum adjudicators and lawyers, in addition to case law and agency policy documents, reveals that the development of gender asylum is reflective of a radical reconfiguration in the meaning of worthiness for asylum in the United States after the end of the Cold War: if for most of the 20th century worthiness for asylum was determined in accordance to a person’s motivation to flee (political/religious versus economic), after the end of the Cold War worthiness for asylum came to be increasingly defined in accordance to whether the trait on account of which a person is persecuted is immutable, meaning that the trait cannot be changed and that the source of persecution cannot be avoided. The article tells the story of this change in definitions of worthiness for asylum. This story begins at a moment of social transformation – when the cold war programmatic framework guiding US refugee policy collapses, and there is no clear alternative framework with which to replace it. If during the Cold War, residence in a communist country served as both the legal and conceptual marker for distinguishing between refugees and other groups of immigrants, after the Cold War, lawmakers were confronted with the challenge of casting content into an ambiguous refugee definition in lack of a shared policy framework. Lawmakers drew on moral scripts found in their broader organizational environment centered on the concept of immutability - the notion that to be worthy of protection you must be targeted on account of traits beyond your control to change - and used these as primary criteria for demarcating the scope of asylum status. Gender-based violence came to define what immutability in the context of asylum means. Victims of gender-based violence symbolized the deserving asylee persecuted on account of an immutable trait (gender), while persons harmed on account of societal factors such as former profession, socio-economic status or place of residence, were framed as unworthy of asylum because they are targeted for mutable traits not fundamental to their individual identity. As asylum takes up an increasingly central place in current global and domestic affairs, questions concerning how classifications between genuine refugees and “illegal” immigrants are made, and how the boundaries of the institution are regulated, are of utmost importance.

Popular posts from this blog

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University

“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…

What Courts do with Executive Privilege Claims

By Gbemende Johnson, Hamilton College

“Because Congress requires this material in order to perform our constitutionally-mandated responsibilities, I will issue a subpoena for the full report and the underlying materials.” This was the response of House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) after receiving the redacted 448-page Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.The battle over the Mueller Report is just one example of conflicts between Congress and the executive branch over executive privilege, where agency officials claim they can withhold documents. Many disputes land in federal court. The Obama Administration Department of Justice spent years in court defending its claim of executive privilege over documents related to the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” gunwalking operation. Federal courts have proven less likely to let cabinet level agencies like the Department of Justice withhold documents than they are with independent agencies li…

Switching Up the Metaphor: from Baseball to Knitting

Susan M. Sterett, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Metaphors guide what we see. In studying law and courts, metaphors for the law have come from baseball: Justice Roberts famously said in his confirmation hearing that judges call balls and strikes. Justice Kavanaugh followed his lead. Although umpires argued the analogy misunderstands the creativity the job requires, it remains a common metaphor for judging. The valuable website Oyez asks on each Supreme Court justice’s biography which baseball player is most like the justice’s contribution to the law. It’s an incomprehensible question for those who don’t follow men’s professional baseball closely. It also points to justices, and individual achievement, as the key players in law. Others are spectators.

What would show up if instead an activity often dismissed as trivial, mechanistic and feminine—knitting (and I want to include crochet; for brevity I’ll sum up both with knitting)—were the metaphor for the law instead?