Request for information on basis of US legal disparities between asylees and refugees
Published: 1 Jun 2016
Hi folks,
In comparing and contrasting refugee and asylee social benefits in the US, I’ve often heard people ruminate that, somewhere along the line, there was congressional intent to be punitive to asylees by giving them inferior benefits because:
- they used their “wherewithal” to get into the US, rather than applying for status from overseas; and/or
- asylees are stereotyped as being children of diplomats and foreign lawyers and academics, whereas refugees are “the worthy poor.”
I’m looking for any leads on whether the myth of the “well-to-do” asylee has an historical basis, either in documents that demonstrate legislative intent or less formal writings or documents, and I’m hoping you may know of some.
I’m specifically interested in the following questions:
- why the obnoxious distinction between requirements for refugee and asylee adjustment at 209(a)(1) and 209(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which creates the necessity of nunc pro tunc for asylees but not refugees;
- why asylees have to pay a filing fee for adjustment whereas the fee is waived for refugees; and
- while I’m on a roll, why does the adjustment rollback date for refugees go to the date of admission under 207 of the INA, whereas for asylees it’s just rolled back a year from the approval of the I-485 application for permanent residence.
So, in sum, are there any writings that would serve to illustrate that the myth of the “well to do” asylee may have been a basis for these disparities for two populations otherwise identical in law?
Thank you friends!
Cheers,
Heather Scavone
Director of the Humanitarian Immigration Law Clinic and Assistant Professor of Law
Elon University School of Law
PO Box 5848
Greensboro, NC 27435