Terrorism And Asylum

Terrorism and Asylum, edited by James C. Simeon, thoroughly analyses terrorism’s use in forced displacement, to limit access to asylum, and to exclude persons from refugee protection, while offering practical alternative solutions for advancing human rights and dignity for everyone.

"In June 2007, the Fraser Institute held a conference in Toronto, Ontario, titled, "Immigration Policy, Border Controls, and the Terrorist Threat In Canada and the United States."The chapters in this volume, which arose from this conference, raise fundamental questions about weaknesses in Canada's current immigration policies and procedures." "The contributors to this volume identify serious threats and weaknesses in the immigration, asylum, and border regimes from both Canadian and American perspectives. The authors are not opposed to effectively managed immigration or allowing genuine refugees who pose no security threat to enter the country through a well-vetted system. All believe that the vast majority of immigrants pose no danger, but are simply seeking to improve their freedom and prosperity. Nevertheless given the stakes raised by terrorist attacks, the entry of even a small number of potentially dangerous individuals should warrant major attention and policy review."--BOOK JACKET.

A key concern of the United States and Europe for accepting refugees is the perceived threat of increased vulnerability to terrorist attacks, especially concerning refugees from origin countries with a known presence of terrorist organizations. While studies have focused on refugee flows to specific countries, research is needed to identify and compare any correlation between refugees and an increased number of terrorist attacks in the receiving country. This thesis aims to analyze any correlation to determine if there is a positive relationship between receiving refugees and an increase in terrorist attacks, and evaluate conditions that may exacerbate or mitigate the likelihood of attacks as a result of accepting refugees.This compilation includes a reproduction of the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.Nation-states have different policies toward accepting refugees as leaders struggle with balancing those policies and assuring their constituents. In recent years we have seen world leaders such as the United States strictly limit the amount of refugees it is willing to accept, while others such as Germany have opened their doors to accommodate vast amounts of refugees. A common concern highlighted in political rhetoric is that increasing the amount of refugees accepted increases the threat to security. For example, the 2018 National Strategy for Counterterrorism argues that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as Daesh) "has exploited weaknesses in European border security to great effect by capitalizing on the migrant crisis to seed attack operatives into the region," stating that "two of the perpetrators of the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris, France, infiltrated the country by posing as migrants." Others argue that more open-door or humanitarian policies, such as that shown by Germany's Angela Merkel, actually "reduces the risk of her citizens being targeted by Middle East terror groups," whether it be by fostering a sense of inclusiveness or a result of direct actions taken by legitimate refugees against terrorists, as was done by Syrian refugees in Germany in 2016. The question, however, remains: does accepting an increased volume of refugees result in an increased number of terrorist attacks in the host country? If so, what are the conditions that may result in an increased amount of attacks or mitigate the incidence of attacks? This study strives to answer these questions.

In Terrorism and Exclusion from Refugee Status in the UK, Sarah Singer examines how ‘terrorism’ has featured in the interpretation and application of the Refugee Convention’s ‘exclusion clause’ and explores the UK’s approach to asylum seekers suspected of serious criminality.

Common wisdom suggests that 9/11 changed everything about refugee law in the United States and Canada. But did it? Refugee Law after 9/11 systematically examines the evidence to reveal that refugee rights were already so whittled down in both countries before 9/11 that there was relatively little room for negative change after the attacks. It also shows that the Canadian refugee law regime reacted to 9/11 in much the same way as its US counterpart, and these similar reactions raise significant questions about security relativism and national self-image in the two countries.

Over the past eight years, thousands of legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the United States have had their applications for asylum, permanent residence, and family reunification denied or delayed due to overly broad provisions of U.S. immigration law that were intended to protect the United States against terrorism. Changes to the immigration laws enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the REAL ID Act of 2005 greatly expanded the immigration law's provisions relating to "terrorism." At the same time, the federal agencies charged with enforcing these laws began to interpret both the old and the new provisions in increasingly expansive ways. This report documents how these changes in law and in legal interpretation are affecting refugees ranging from peaceful advocates for democracy to former child soldiers. The report offers recommendations to Congress and to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.