A lot of them probably do qualify under US law, but not the majority, because US law requires that they be targeted on the basis of some characteristic like gender or race.
A lot of the female children are targeted for sexual violence by the armed gangs in these three countries, and they may well have claims. Some of the kids are profiled by gangs for potential membership (or by their governments as potential members of the gangs) and targeted for violence for that reason, which might also be a cognizable claim depending on the profile used. But I think the majority are just fleeing generalized violence. Even when the individual has specifically received a threat or some prior violence, and the state is unable or unwilling to make reasonable efforts to protect that individual, that is not a basis for refugee status in the US unless that individual was targeted for some reason such as their nationality or social group.
I think they are clearly refugees under the Cartagena Declaration.
It’s not entirely Congress. The statute does not define persecution based on “social group” which is the most nebulous of the refugee categories. Child soldiers, for example, are generally considered a social group.
The executive branch could issue regulations defining “social group” to include things like being subject to domestic abuse, being targeted by gangs for being a young man of a certain age, etc. A carefully crafted regulation could potentially net a lot of these kids, and probably more than will win asylum under current law, though again probably not a majority.
OK, so you say it’s the law because it’s the law, and he says it’s the law because it trumps other laws.
It’s almost as if, rather than saying, “I think you must mean the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, not the UN Charter itself, and if that’s the case, then we agree on what the law is here” you’d rather nitpick things to death.
No. But I figured that a minute’s Googling might get me the UN definition of ‘refugee’, so we could get past your silly dicking around.
I was right on the first point, but apparently wrong on the second one. Such is life.
But getting back to my main point, the AFA should be urging a benevolent approach to the kids who are refugees from violence, even if it’s just generalized violence. “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” saith the Lord, and all that.
They’re not bound by law in their advocacy. They can urge that the Executive Branch interpret the law as expansively as possible in this situation, and they can lobby Congress to change the law if the law as is results in children being sent back into violent environments.
But instead, they choose to be hard of heart. Jesus had more than a few things to say about hardheartedness, and none of them were flattering.
There are millions of us Christians who believe that an honest application of Biblical imperatives obligates us to support freedom of reproductive choice and marriage equality, you know.
On a more serious note, Jesus wasn’t just a cosmic MacGuffin that allows those who find him to enter Heaven. A good many of his words and deeds - or what Christians regard as such, which is the important thing here - are recorded in the Gospels.
Feel free to come up with an argument that Jesus wouldn’t have urged his followers to act with compassion and generosity towards these kids. But I sure don’t see it.
I like to wear my hair long
how can there be anything wrong
when you’ve already accused me twice
of lookin’ like Jesus Christ - hallelujah!
-Brewer and Shipley, “Oh Mommy”
Hair as long as Jesus wore it,
hallelujah, I adore it,
hallelujah, Mary loved her son,
why don’t my mother love me,
haaaaiiiiiir!
-Title song from Hair
