I am not an immigration expert and I don’t know what the internationally accepted definition of a refugee is.
A year ago this was probably the stupidest question one could ask. But currently …
I could see how anyone who is trans could be considered for refugee status from the US government. I’d include women seeking abortions to that considering they will be criminals for having travelled out of state for an abortion when their own state have outlawed abortions.
Would any country actually offer the oppressed American citizens refugee status?
If such things come to pass, I think they will. Canada will have to do something, since they’ll be crossing our border in any case. Mexico as well. I don’t think we’d just send them packing, at least at first. If things get bad enough, we could be swamped pretty easily. We might have to start shipping them to other countries, instead.
I don’t know. For trans people, who they will be coming for first, I don’t know where there is to go. I know the UK recently passed some anti trans law of its own.
As a Jew, I rank rather far down on the list. I am a white cis heterosexual man. They won’t be coming for me for quite a while yet. Should they decide that reducing us (along with LGBTQ+ people, black people, brown people, and women) to second class citizens is not enough and start actual death camps, obviously Israel will take us in.
I also don’t know just how generous or isolationist most countries are right now. I know the US turned away refugees fleeing the Nazis.
Possibly Norway. I recently saw it claimed that Norway is offering refugee status to trans people from the US, but that is a huge exaggeration. It appears that a local politician, who is running for a higher office, has said that Norway should grant refugee status to trans Americans.
If being trans counts as a special social group, and they are being subjected to inhumane treatment in the US, then they will meet Norway’s requirement to be granted refugee status. I do not know what the process is for Norway to make those decisions.
Getting a 4 year residency visa in Mexico does not seem too difficult, so refugee status won’t be required for many people fleeing there. One qualifying status is to have (I think) $65,000 in the bank. Yes, that will rule out lots of Americans, but also make many others qualify.
Uruguay is one of the best places for trans people’s and in general LGBTQ people’s legal rights, next to Canada and Spain. I’ve chosen it as my destination for when the Trump hits the fan. Canada will be too crowded with Americans. I like the idea of heading to a place that nobody ever thinks of.
That assumes the people doing the fleeing have access to their banks, or have planned this out far enough in advance to have moved their money somewhere safe.
We’ve already seen the Trump administration cancel some peoples SSNs, making it impossible for them to access the banking system. If they’re at the point that they’re treating some class so badly that the people are considering becoming refugees to Mexico, I imagine the US will have already declared them “unpersons” in this way. Hell, with trans people, it’s easy. “You declared that “Mr. Formername” is your “deadname”, therefore Mr Formername is dead.” By the time this happens, will there be anyone left in the legal system who will dispute this?
Yes, I agree. When people have enough time to plan and execute exit strategies then this is a valid option. The time required is probably even very short, on the order of weeks, if there are no systemic barriers (like the canceled SSN).
If it is a matter of run now, cross the border however you can, and figure it out when you get there, then it is much more difficult, and people are at the mercy of the new country’s refugee system, rather than the normal immigration system.
I think it would be very prudent for people who think they will specifically be targeted (due to group class or individual actions) to move as much assets offshore as they can. This should be reversible if the worst does not come to pass, and being a refugee with $50,000 at HSBC is much better than with only what’s in your pockets. I do realize for many people this is not possible.
To answer the OP, I doubt it, because even at its worst, the Trump administration is not likely to get to the sort of Gestapo/junta/Assad level that would make other nations feel it’s necessary to grant true-refugee status to Americans. It won’t be bad enough to qualify.
If the U.S. starts arresting the people on Kash Patel’s enemies list, or well known critical journalists, I think a limited number of those not yet arrested will be able to successfully find asylum abroad.
Even this would be a problem for Canada or Mexico because they are so vulnerable to Trump’s retaliation.
If Trump has already conquered Greenland, Denmark may be a reasonable option, as Denmark will already have burned all its bridges to the U.S.
I don’t imagine many will proactively offer to accept Americans as refugees: remains to be seen if many will be asked to reactively consider applications for asylum - which may well require evidence of direct persecution of the individual concerned.
(Incidentally, the UK situation is that our Supreme Court has ruled that existing equality legislation was only intended to cover biological sex and that protection doesn’t extend to gender recognition: quite how that plays out in particular circumstances is still to be worked out).
Yeah, usually to get refugee status you have to firmly proove you, -personally- , have been actively persecuted/harmed, and failed to be protected, not that your country have been passing some laws restricting your rights.
Plus, in the EU for ex, if your country of origin has been classed as a “safe country”, it’s even garder to obtain refugee status.
And that’s not allowing for numbskull jobsworths in the bureaucracy, who seem to be over-represented in the UK Home Office.
(We did take a number, like Joseph Losey and Sam Wanamaker, fleeing McCarthy et al in the 50s, but whether they technically counted as refugees or were admitted to work as creatives, I don’t know)
So not quite “passing anti-trans law” but rulint that the law as it is does not cover this — as I understand it, in the UK system this means it’s up to Parliament to explicitly extend the protection in statute or not.
I know, I know, your very existence should not be subject to legislation — but to legally enforce rights requires for there to be a law about it, so here we are.
[/aside]
