New Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and the Harvard Human Rights Program Study

The Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and the Harvard Human Rights Program have released a study finding that overbroad “material support” provisions of U.S. anti-terror law are threatening to exclude thousands of legitimate Burmese refugees from protection. In the first study of provision’s practical effects, researchers found that as many as 80% of the Burmese populations surveyed may be labeled as engaging in material support or “terrorist” activities and barred from resettlement under the current interpretations of the bar. The material support bar affects both refugees abroad and those seeking asylum in the United States. It applies regardless of whether the “support” was coerced or provided to oppose a repressive regime condemned by the U.S. government.

Study:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/asylum_law/Material_Support_Study.pdf

Press Release:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/asylum_law/Material_Support_Press_Release.pdf

The Harvard

New York Times Article on the material support bar and Harvard study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08immig.html

Also on the topic of overbroad U.S. immigration laws, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and Human Rights program have sent the Senate a letter condemning provisions of the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (Specter’s mark) that broadly criminalize unlawful presence and the use of irregular documents to enter the country. These provisions would criminalize many bona fide refugees and could exclude them from protection in violation of U.S. obligations under the Refugee Protocol. The letter is available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/asylum_law/legislation/Harvard_Letter_to_Judiciary.pdf

The ImmigrationProf Blog has published a list of amendments to CIR offered before last week’s markup. The amendments include provisions that would limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens (if birth is out of wedlock, mother must be U.S. citizen), expand expedited removal, deny visas to nationals of countries not cooperating with deportation of its nationals from the U.S., vastly expand local enforcement of immigration laws, and increase penalties for several of the new offenses created by the existing bill. See http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/

Finally, senate staffers are asking for one- to two-paragraph write-ups of sympathetic refugee stories relevant to provisions of CIR (e.g. a former client who could be denied protection due to document fraud). The stories will be used in efforts to strike certain enforcement provisions of Specter’s mark. If you have a moment to help out, please e-mail your write-up to mmuller@law.harvard.edu

KJ