US withdraws from Refugee Protocol

The Proposed Rule, changing the US rules for Asylum, raises the standard of proof from a "significant possibility" to a "reasonable possiblility" that the alien would be persecuted or tortured in the country of removal. In short, this means that it is no longer sufficient that an alien has well-founded fear but has to prove that persecution or torture has happened or will happen. This higher standard is almost the same as requiring that you have written evidence that you are or will be persecuted or tortured. This higher standard is in violation with the Refugee Treaty and its Protocol of 1967, of which the USA is a signatory, and which states explicitly that a well-foudned fear is enough to meet the definition of a refugee.

One could have a discussion on the precise wording of the Treaty and Protocol and how these differ from the Proposed Rule. However, I think it is simply more convincing to observe that this restrictive change of the American rules on international protection are by definition a restriction of the concept of a refugee. This means that the USA does no longer fulfils its duty to incorporate the 1967 Protocol into US immigration Law. Or, in other words, the USA has practically withdrawn itself from its legal obligations to offer protection to refugees as the adjusted meaning in the Proposed Rule creates a new category of refugees who have written evidence. And as history has shown, a person with well-founded fear of persecution seldom has a written note from his or her persecutor.

If the USA will change its rules as proposed, it will not only deny protection to most if not all refugees, but also deny the roots of this nation, which George Washington, one of the founding fathers who escaped from Europe, so eloquently formulated: "The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions".

The Proposed Rule ignores this part of American history.