The United States

Abstract

Abstract The United States presents a fascinating contrast to the other countries analyzed in this book. It features many factors associated with the successful utilization of constitutionalized human rights law on behalf of refugees: an independent judiciary, a robust cohort of lawyers dedicated to upholding the rights of refugees, a reputation (at least until the Trump Administration) for providing protection to refugees fleeing persecution elsewhere, and a population that is—generally speaking—sympathetic to their plight. What it lacks is a Constitution containing a plethora of human rights provisions applicable to refugees and asylum-seekers. In addition, the U.S. Constitution does not incorporate or reference human rights treaties that the United States has signed, ratified, or otherwise acceded to. As a result, when lawyers representing refugees in the United States invoke the U.S. Constitution to protect their clients, they rely almost exclusively on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This chapter demonstrates that the process for greater human rights protections for refugees is not linear. While U.S. lawyers have certainly helped to establish important constitutional rights for non-citizens over the years, an increasingly conservative judiciary and negative depictions of non-citizens in public discourse have reversed or limited those gains. U.S. lawyers, like their counterparts in the other countries featured in this book, have adapted their strategies accordingly, knowing that the path toward greater rights protections for refugees is never straightforward. They also recognize the importance of controlling the public narrative about non-citizens, which has become increasingly acerbic in recent years.