The Human Rights Institute and Clinic have long been involved in advocacy around the rights of immigrant populations in the United States and in promoting U.S. compliance with international legal obligations regarding the rights of foreign nationals. In 2009, clinic students produced a brief for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a ground-breaking case regarding the application of the so-called “national security bar” to an Uzbek asylum-seeker. Marshaling the jurisprudence of foreign national courts and commentary from international human rights bodies, the brief argued that overbroad application of the national security bar was contrary to the purpose of international refugee protection and put the U.S. out of step with international practice. The brief was innovative for its in-depth discussion of foreign national court jurisprudence and helps establish the relevance of international refugee law principles in U.S. courts.
The brief is part of the Institute's ongoing effort to identify the growing trend of traditionally rights-upholding states using counterterrorism measures to defeat the humanitarian purposes of immigration law. In “securitizing” immigration policy, that is, framing immigration decisions as ordinarily implicative of national security rather than rarely so, these states relegate to the background international norms of refugee protection and the torture prohibition, reducing their salience and elevating “security” as a debate-ending justification.
