What Would an Expanded, More Inclusive Refugee Definition Look Like? How the U.S. or Canada Could Expand Refugee Protection and Serve as a Model for Others
It may seem counterintuitive, even delusional, to suggest expanding the refugee definition at a moment in history when the political tides that once provided at least partial buy-in to the proposition that people fleeing persecution deserve international protection have turned and been replaced by increasingly widespread dismissal, if not outright hostility, to the claims of those seeking asylum. Yet, the countervailing reality is that the number of people forcibly displaced and at risk is the highest in recorded history; Footnote #1 content: Forced Migration or Displacement, MIGRATION DATA PORTAL (Jun. 20, 2024), https://perma.cc/ Q36K-79D7 (reporting that 117.3 million people were forcibly displaced by the end of 2023—the highest figure on record—including an estimated 40% who were children). the construction of walls, closing of doors, and heightening of legal bars to protection will not make asylum seekers’ motivation to survive by crossing borders any less imperative or their reasons for fleeing any less valid. This article argues that dysfunctional asylum systems, backlogs of pending cases, and backlashes in public receptivity toward refugees are attributable, in large part, to an anachronistic and overly narrow refugee definition that has failed to align the legitimate need for protection of many of the today’s refugees with the standards needed to qualify for asylum. This article, therefore, will propose language for future legislators in Canada and the United States to consider expanding their country’s respective refugee definitions to encompass more realistically the drivers of forced migration in the mid twenty-first century and the actual threats to life and person returned people are likely to face, while recognizing that in the current political environment opening the refugee definition to change would too likely result in narrowed grounds for refugee eligibility and risk further damage to an already precarious global asylum system.
Many of the life-threatening conditions that currently force people from their homes, including but not limited to lawless and indiscriminate violence, rising sea levels, desertification, and persecution based on gender or sexual orientation, were not recognized—or even contemplated—as grounds for international protection in 1951 by the drafters of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“1951 Convention”). In a world where millions are forcibly displaced for reasons that do not readily fit within the concept of being persecuted on one of the five protected grounds enshrined in the 1951 Convention, states and regions should consider a refugee definition that would encompass a broader set of people facing existential threats. While I recognize that the 47th U.S. president and the 119th Congress have signaled their intention to narrow the scope of protection provided in U.S. law, this essay will argue to the contrary that expanding the refugee standard would not only provide a more relevant and effective means of providing protection to deserving applicants but would also improve processing efficiency and lower costs.
Continue reading What Would an Expanded, More Inclusive Refugee Definition Look Like?