Closing Protection Gaps: Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees in States Signatories to the 1951 Convention

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/books/1018/thumbnail.jp

Myths and Realities of the Palestinian Refugee Problem: Reframing the Right of Return

The essay discusses elements of the Palestinian refugee problem that are found in numerous mass refugee situations in Africa, Central America, Asia and Europe. What remains unique about the Palestinian refugee problem is the persistent and severe denial of international protection, the lack of access both to a durable solution and to the mechanisms for implementing a durable solution -- minimum protection guarantees that are available to other refugee populations. This paper describes the main legal issues underlying the Palestinian refugee question, examining and deconstructing several of the key arguments surrounding the rights and principles involved in the refugee problem. These arguments are broadly described, discussing the actual rights involved, along with their implications for a just and durable solution to this core aspect of the Middle East conflict

Extrapolating Lessons from a Master Mentor: What Bob Burdick Taught Me

Bob Burdick began his career in clinical practice as a student in the clinic at Boston University School of Law in 1970, shortly after the civil clinic had been established as the Legal Aid Program in Hyde Park in 1969. Right out of law school, Bob worked at Greater Boston Legal Services (“GBLS”), he then was hired at BU as a clinical instructor and later promoted to director of what became the Civil Litigation Program in 1979. During the forty years Bob led the civil clinic (now renamed the Civil Litigation and Justice Program), he was the creative and innovative brains behind it, the master mentor, the innovative clinical teacher, the ethical problem solver, the student-centered supervisor, and a generous colleague

Race, Civil Rights, and Immigration Law after September 11, 2001

This article is part of a symposium on Migration Regulation Goes Local: The Role of States in U.S. Immigration Policy. Although only time will tell, September 11, 2001 promises to be a watershed in thehistory of the United States. Not long after the tragedy, supporters and critics alike saw the federal government as pushing the envelope in restricting civil liberties in the name of national security. This article analyzes the nation\u27s response to the horrific loss of life of September 11 and shows how the centralization ofimmigration power in the hands of the federal government, may exacerbate the civil rights impacts of theenforcement of the immigration laws. The federal government has acted more swiftly and uniformly thanthe states ever could, with severe consequences for the Arab and Muslim community in the United States. That the reaction was federal in nature - and thus national in scope as well as uniform in design and impact,and with precious few legal constraints - worsened the civil rights impacts. The civil rights deprivations resulting from federal action reveals that national regulation of immigration is a double-edged sword. Although federal law pre-empts state laws designed to regulate immigration or discriminate against aliens, it can also, with few legal constraints, strike out at immigrants across the nation if it sees fit. That in turn suggests that the role of states, as well as the federal government, in the regulation ofimmigration and immigrants, especially in times of national crisis, deserves most serious attention. The federal government\u27s response to September 11 also demonstrates the close relationship between immigration law and civil rights in the United States. Noncitizens historically have been the most vulnerable to civil rights deprivations, in large part because the law permits, perhaps even encourages, extreme governmental conduct with minimal protections for the rights of noncitizens. Unfortunately, the current backlash against Arabs and Muslims in the United States fits comfortably into a long nativist history. In sum, a complex matrix of otherness based on race, national origin, religion, and political ideology contributes to the current attacks on the civil rights of Arabs and Muslims in the United States. As has occurred in the past, the ripple effects of national security measures in the end may adversely affect the legalrights of all noncitizens, not just Arabs and Muslims. Indeed, as we contend in this article, the civil rightsdeprivations resulting from the war on terrorism may have long term adverse impacts on the civil rights ofcitizens as well as noncitizens in the United States. To help us better understand the latest war on terrorism, Part I of the Article analyzes the general demonization of Arabs and Muslims generally in the United States and how the law has been influenced by,and reinforced, the negative stereotypes. This section reviews the federal government\u27s actions directed atArabs and Muslims in the name of combating terrorism well before September 11. As Professor Edward Said has observed, terrorism in these times has displaced Communism as public enemy number one. That has translated into a near exclusive focus on foreign terrorists, particularly Arabs and Muslims. Part II studiesthe federal government\u27s zealous investigatory methods after September 11 directed at Muslim and Arab noncitizens, with disregard for their civil rights, and the possible long term impacts of that response

Sleep duration, sleep variability, and impairments of visual attention

Attentional networks are sensitive to sleep deprivation. However, variation in attentional performance as a function of normal sleep parameters is under-studied. We examined whether attentional performance is influenced by 1) individual differences in sleep duration; 2) sleep duration variability; and/or 3) their interaction. Fifty-seven healthy participants (61.4% female; mean age=32.37 years; SD=8.68) completed questionnaires, wore wrist actigraphy for one week, and subsequently completed the Attention Network Test. Sleep duration and sleep duration variability did not predict orienting score, executive control score or error rates. Sleep duration variability appeared to moderate the association between sleep duration with overall reaction time (β = -.34, t= -2.13, p=.04) and alerting scores (β= .43, t=2.94, p=.01), though further inspection of the data suggested that these were spurious findings. Time of testing was a significant predictor of alerting score (β=.35, t=2.96, p=.01), chronotype of orienting (β=.31, t=2.28, p=.03) and age of overall reaction time (β=.35, t=2.70, p=.01). Our results highlight the importance of examining the associations between variations in sleep-wake patterns and attentional networks in samples with greater variation in sleep, as well as the importance of rigorously teasing apart mechanisms of the sleep homeostat from those related to the circadian rhythm in studies examining cognition

Temporary Protection as an Instrument for Implementing the Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees

The article argues for an internationally harmonized approach to temporary protection for Palestinian refugees and stateless persons. Temporary protection offers protection rights to this huge population of refugees that they lack in any of the main regions in which they have sought refuge. The article establishes the legal framework for temporary protection in the particular historical, legal and political context of the Palestinian refugee situation. It argues for the urgency of a harmonized rights-based protection regime

Immigration and Constitutional Consequences of Post-9/11 Policies Involving Arabs and Muslims in the United States: Is Alienage a Distinction without a Difference?

There has been much public and academic discussion on post-9/11 government policies and whether their impact on Arabs and Muslims in the United States is unconstitutional “racial profiling” or legitimate immigration control based on constitutionally permissible nationality distinctions. The main assumption underlying this debate is that the focus of the government\u27s policies in the “war on terror” is noncitizens, even if principally Arabs and Muslims. Thus, the racial profiling issues center on the differences between the constitutional due process analysis applied to noncitizens and that applied to citizens. This Article challenges the above argument and a number of its underlying assumptions. Part I challenges the assumption that the targets of the government\u27s domestic policies in the “war on terror” are Arab and Muslim noncitizens. We review evidence indicating that U.S. government targeting of Arabs and Muslims, both aliens and citizens, began long before September 11, 2001. This part then examines the full range of post-9/11 government actions and concludes that the communities targeted are Arab and Muslim citizens as well as noncitizens. Part II addresses the long-term immigration and constitutional consequences of significant new policies and their effects on noncitizen Muslims and Arabs in the United States. Part II also analyzes whether the laws and policies meet constitutional standards in either the immigration or nonimmigration context. Part III concludes with an assessment of major policy changes and their long-term consequences -- across the citizen/noncitizen divide -- on the overall integrity of the constitutional system: consequences to free speech and association, checks and balances, and open judicial and governmental process

A Comparative Perspective on Safe Third and First Country of Asylum Policies in the United Kingdom and North America: Legal Norms, Principles and Lessons Learned

Wealthy refugee-receiving countries across the global north have recently been experimenting with systems that they believe will allow them lawfully to remove or turn back asylum-seekers reaching their borders, without considering their claims for international protection. These include the Trump administration\u27s Asylum Cooperation Agreements (ACAs), the United Kingdom\u27s Nationality and Borders Act, and the recent amendments to Denmark\u27s Aliens Act that will allow asylum-seekers to be transferred to third countries for processing. Although these systems have many important differences, they rest on a shared premise that neither the Refugee Convention nor international, regional or domestic human rights laws prohibit such transfers, as long as they are to a safe first country of asylum, in which the transferees have previously had access to protection, or a safe third country, where they will in theory have access to protection in the future. This article will first look at the history of safe country rules and procedures in North America before exploring litigation over such rules in the United Kingdom, in order to identify emerging legal norms limiting or prohibiting safe country transfers. We will argue that although there is a clear legal consensus that transfer cannot take place without an individualized assessment of whether it would put an asylum-seeker at risk of refoulement or inhuman and degrading treatment, there is so far little indication of consensus on the need to ensure access to the positive benefits of refugee status, such as housing, education, employment and eventual integration, or on the relevance to the legality of the transfer of social and cultural ties or private and family life