Advocacy Update
September 2005

Ironic Casualties of the War on Terror
By Matt Wilch, LIRS Director for Policy

Certain vulnerable refugees have recently become casualties of the war on terrorism. Based on well-intended but too broad anti-terrorism provisions in the USA Patriot Act and the Real ID Act, officials have been denying protection to a growing number of refugees. These provisions state that anyone who has given “material support” to a “foreign terrorist organization” cannot receive refugee resettlement or asylum in the United States. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but as the profiles below show, there is no exception for those whose “support” was coerced from them with threats of violence, or for those who supported legitimate armed resistance to brutal regimes. So, ironically, those fleeing terror are being denied it in the name of keeping America safe from terror.

Miguel, a poor farmer, lived in a part of Colombia controlled by a rebel group officially designated as a “foreign terrorist organization”. The rebels threatened to harm Miguel and his family unless they handed over food and “taxes.” Fearing for their lives, the family complied, but when demands and threats escalated, they sought protection in nearby Ecuador. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees recognized Miguel as a refugee, and referred him for U.S. resettlement. But even though Miguel paid those “war taxes” under great duress, U.S. officials denied him resettlement. And he is not alone. Officials have denied protection to many who had been coerced into providing “material support” to “terrorist organizations.”

Aung and Zi are from Burma. From time to time they gave food, shelter and money to a pro-democracy group fighting the brutal Burmese military dictatorship. When the Burmese military persecuted Aung and tortured Zi for their religious and pro-democracy beliefs, Aung fled to Malaysia and Zi to the United States. UNHCR recognized Aung as a refugee, and referred her and many others in similar situations to U.S. authorities for resettlement. Despite the fact that the U.S. government has long condemned Burma’s human rights abuses, and has not designated this pro-democracy group as terrorists, officials deferred Aung’s case. On the same grounds Zi was denied asylum by a judge who expressed frustration that the ban against “material support” was worded so broadly. He felt he had no power to make an exception for Zi’s support of “what most would consider a legitimate armed struggle for freedom against an oppressive military dictatorship.”

The good and legitimate aim of the law is to bar terrorists and those who bankroll them from entering or gaining legal status in the United States. But the result has been that we are barring deserving refugees from protection in this country.

LIRS and colleague agencies are deeply concerned about the immediate and long-term impact that this overly broad “material support” provision and its application could have on refugee protection. As an immediate step, we are beginning dialogue with Homeland Security officials to raise these concerns and explore ways to more justly interpret the provisions or provide a waiver for deserving refugees. As we continue to advocate for fair treatment of vulnerable refugees like Miguel and Aung and Zi, we will keep you informed through this column and other updates on the LIRS website.

Read past Advocacy/Washington Updates.