Political Asylum Under the 1980 Refugee Act: An Unfulfilled Promise

Part I of this Article reviews the history and development of asylum law in the United States which culminated in the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. It analyzes the failure of the responsible administrative authorities to follow the dictates of the law - a circumstance which prompted the passage of the Act and which now threatens to subvert the right to asylum in the United States. Part II considers the impact on asylum seekers of new alien interdiction and detention programs, and the legality of those programs under domestic and international law. Finally, Part III makes specific recommendations, including proposals for changes in the administration of asylum law in the United States, with a view toward depoliticizing the process and ensuring prompt and fair adjudications

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OF INTERCEPTING AND FORCIBLY RETURNING HAmAN BOAT PEOPLE TO HAITI: POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND PROSPECTS

This article discusses the policy consequences of the United States government program, in operation in various forms since 1981, to intercept at sea and forcibly return Haitian boat people to Haiti. The evolution of the return program is described and analyzed in the context of refugee policy, both internationally and in the United States. Policy implications are analyzed and recommendations are made for a reformulated policy response

Resistance to Military Conscription Or Forced Recruitment by Insurgents As a Basis for Refugee Protection: A Comparative Perspective

This Article discusses certain instances in which claims for refugee protection could be recognized, even though they are asserted in the context of armed conflict and based on objection to participation in the conflict. While other nations rely on international principles to interpret treaty-derived terms in statutes governing refugee matters, the United States Supreme Court has ignored this convention in taking a restrictive approach to refugee protection. By narrowly construing the term political opinion and unduly focusing on the persecutor\u27s state of mind, the Court has limited the scope of protection for thousands of legitimate asylum seekers. The decisions of a number of relevant foreign tribunals show that the Supreme Court\u27s rationale runs contrary to established international standards. This Article urges Congress to bring the doctrinal position of the United States back into conformity with international standards and comparative jurisprudence

Judicial Abdication Before the Golden Door

IMMIGRATION AND THE JUDICIARY: LAW AND POLITICS IN BRITAIN AND AMERICA. By Stephen H. Legomsky.t New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1987. Pp. xxxix, 345. $68.00 (hardbound). Why are courts generally reluctant to vindicate the claims of aliens seeking to come to or remain in a foreign country? What makes immigration unique as a subject for judicial intervention in terms of deference to the prerogatives of the other branches of government, to the detriment of individual rights? These questions, which have long puzzled practitioners, are addressed by Professor Legomsky in Immigration and the Judiciary. His method is to examine and compare judicial review of immigration cases in the United Kingdom and the United States