In the late 2000s and early 2010s, anti-immigrant rhetoric rose on a tide of fears about the U.S. economy. Nativist narratives inspired by rising unemployment dominated an increasingly antagonistic debate about U.S. immigration policy. Restrictive state laws, most notably those found in Alabama and Arizona, and a movement to ban birthright citizenship became hot political topics that sent some Republican and Tea Party politicians scurrying to claim the positions their constituencies demanded. But as popular concern regarding “illegals” dominated the discussion, federal immigration policy continued on, misunderstood and excluded from the highly political sound bites that shape public opinion. Most political rhetoric involves immigration from Mexico. Unbeknownst to many of those most passionate about immigration issues, people of Hispanic origin make up about 15 percent of the U.S. population, and only about 6 percent of the Hispanic population in the United States is foreign-born. Those who are not foreign-born are U.S. citizens. Many of those who are foreign-born have legal status in the United States. Of the immigrants filling our land with different tongues and cultural diversity, most came legally as family-sponsored immigrants, as holders of employment-based visas, or, as this Note discusses, as refugees and asylees.
Over 73,000 refugees settled in the United States in 2010. The refugees had the necessary paperwork to legally immigrate to the United States after having been determined by the United Nations to be a victim of persecution. The vast majority of these immigrants were resettled from refugee camps to which they escaped after fleeing war, unrest, or other forms of persecution in their own native country. Similarly, those seeking asylum come to the United States after having suffered persecution but without formal recognition of their status. They arrive either under a temporary visa or without documentation and then seek recognition from the U.S. government that they are victims of persecution and qualify as asylees.
The narratives accompanying U.S. asylum law differ markedly from those filling the pages of the current immigration debate. Asylum applicants’ stories are filled with accounts of terrible suffering, courageous journeys, and hope for a future without fear. Raising awareness of these heroic individuals would add a different hue to the current discussion, which is colored more by vitriol and passion than by a true understanding of the diversity of global migration.
But the asylum narrative also suffers shortcomings. To meet the standard required to obtain asylum, applicants must focus on their suffering, describing themselves as victims of their persecutors and their native land. This Note examines the ways the victim narrative can have long-lasting effects, primarily on the client but also on the attorney and on society as a whole. The immigration debate treats the applicants as powerless victims, rather than as a culturally diverse group of survivors that is contributing to the changing fabric of American society. But several steps can be taken, both on a practical individual level and through systemic changes, to mitigate such potential damage.
Part I of this Note provides an overview of U.S. asylum law: the legal standards, the process by which individuals seek asylum, and the purposes of U.S. asylum law. Part II turns to the subject of narratives, focusing specifically on the victim narrative and its prevalence in asylum law. Part III addresses the many concerns raised by the use of the victim narrative in asylum law. Finally, Part IV follows with suggestions on how to mitigate these concerns. While many of these suggestions are hallmarks of the client-centered lawyering and Therapeutic Jurisprudence movements, this Note focuses specifically on their application to victim narratives in asylum law. The result is a practical outline that practitioners and clients can use to maneuver within the rich narrative landscape and static legal standards and to create legal and personal narratives that achieve legal goals, personal growth, and societal enlightenment.