User:Sion00/sandbox

Current Article: - Original Text

As soon as people seeking asylum in the United States are accepted as refugees they are eligible for public assistance just like any other person, including cash welfare, food assistance, and health coverage. Many refugees depend on public benefits, but over time may become self-sufficient.^[1]

Availability of public assistance programs can vary depending on which states within the United States refugees are allocated to resettle in. For example, health policies differ from state to state, and as of 2017, only 33 states expanded Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act.^[2] In 2016, The American Journal of Public Health reported that only 60% of refugees are assigned to resettlement locations with expanding Medicaid programs, meaning that more than 1 in 3 refugees may have limited healthcare access.^[3]

In 2015, the world saw the greatest displacement of people since World War II with 65.3 million people having to flee their homes.^[4] In fiscal year 2016, the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act (MRA) requested that $442.7 million be allocated to refugee admission programs that relocate refugees into communities across the country.^[5] President Obama made a "Call to Action" for the private sector to make a commitment to help refugees by providing opportunities for jobs and accommodating refugee accessibility needs.^[6]

Historically, homosexuality was considered a deviant behavior in the US; as such, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 barred homosexual individuals from entering the United States due to concerns about their psychological health.^[7] One of the first successful LGBT asylum pleas to be granted refugee status in the United States due to sexual orientation was a Cuban national whose case was first presented in 1989.^[8] The case was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the barring of LGBT and queer individuals into the United States was repealed in 1990. The case, known as Matter of Acosta (1985), set the standard of what qualified as a "particular social group." This new definition of "social group" expanded to explicitly include homosexuality and the LGBT population. It considers homosexuality and gender identity a "common characteristic of the group either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences."^[9] This allows political asylum to some LGBT individuals who face potential criminal penalties due to homosexuality and sodomy being illegal in the home country who are unable to seek protection from the state.^[10][11] The definition was intended to be open-ended in order to fit with the changing understanding of sexuality. According to Fatma Marouf, the definition established in Acosta was influential internationally, appealing to "the fundamental norms of human rights."^[12]

Experts disagree on the role of sexuality in the asylum process. Stefan Volger argues that the definition of social group tends to be relatively flexible, and describes sexuality akin to religion—one might change religions but characteristics of religion are protected traits that can't be forced.^[9][12] However, Susan Berger argues that while homosexuality and other sexual minorities might be protected under the law, the burden of proving that they are an LGBT member demonstrates a greater immutable view of the expected LGBT performance.^[13] The importance of visibility is stressed throughout the asylum process, as sexuality is an internal characteristic. It is not visibly represented in the outside appearance.^[12]

When considering how sexuality is viewed, research utilize asylum claim decisions and individual cases to understand what is considered characteristic of being a member of the LGBT community. In migration studies, there was an implicit assumption that immigrants are heterosexual and LGBT people are citizens.^[14]

One theory that took route within the queer migrations studies was Jasbir Puar's idea of homonationalism. According to Paur, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the movement against terrorists also resulted in a reinforcement of the binary "us vs. them" against some members of the LGBT community. The social landscape was termed "homonormative nationalism" or homonationalism.^[15]

According to Amanda M. Gómez, sexual orientation identity is formed and performed in the asylum process.^[16] Unlike race or gender, in sexual orientation asylum claims, applicants have to prove their sexuality to convince asylum officials that they are truly part of their social group.^[16] Rachel Lewis and Nancy Naples argue that LGBT people may not seem credible if they do not fit Western stereotypes of what LGBT people look like^[17]. The expectation is that lesbians will present in masculine ways, while gay men will present in feminine ways.^[17] Eithne Luibhéid recognizes this presentation issue as connecting to the mainstream narrative that same-sex attraction comes from a problem of women being trapped in the men's body and vice-versa.^[18] Dress, mannerisms, and style of speech, as well as not having had public romantic relationships with the opposite sex, may be perceived by the immigration judge as not reflective of the applicants’ sexual orientation.^[18] Scholars and legal experts have long argued that asylum law has created legal definitions for homosexuality that are essentialist and damaging for our understanding of queerness.^[16]

Female asylum seekers may encounter issues when seeking asylum in the United States due to what some see as a structural preference for male narrative forms in the requirements for acceptance.^[13] Researchers, such as Amy Shuman and Carol Bohmer, argue that the asylum process produces gendered cultural silences, particular in hearings where the majority of narrative construction takes place.^[19] Cultural silences refers to things that women refrain from sharing, due to shame, humiliation, and other deterrents.^[19] These deterrents can make achieving asylum more difficult as it can keep relevant information from being shared with the asylum judge.^[19]

Susan Berger argues that the relationship between gender and sexuality leads to arbitrary case decisions, as there are no clear guidelines for when the private problems becomes an international problem. Berger uses case specific examples of asylum applications where gender and sexuality both act as an immutable characteristic. She argues that because male persecutors of lesbian and heterosexual female applicants tend to be family members, their harm occurs in the private domain and is therefore excluded from asylum consideration. Male applicants, on the other hand, are more likely to experience targeted, public persecution that relates better to the traditional idea of a homosexual asylum seeker. Male applicants are encouraged to perform gay stereotypes to strengthen their asylum application on the basis of sexual orientation, while lesbian women face the same difficulties as their heterosexual partners to perform the homosexual narrative.^[13] Joe Rollins found that gay male applicants were more likely to be granted refugee status if they included rape in their narratives, while gay Asian immigrants were less likely to be granted refugee status over all, even with the inclusion of rape.^[20] This, he claimed, was due to Asian men being subconsciously feminized.^[20]

These experiences are articulated during the hearing process where the responsibility to prove membership is on the applicant.^[13][19][9] During the hearing process, applicants are encouraged to demonstrate persecution for gender or sexuality and place the source as their own culture. Shuman and Bohmer argue that in sexual minorities, it is not enough to demonstrate only violence, asylum applicants have to align themselves against a restrictive culture. The narratives are forced to fit into categories shaped by western culture or be found to be fraudulent.^[19]

According to Shuman and Bohmer, due to women's social position in most countries, lesbians are more likely to stay in the closet, which often means that they do not have the public visibility element that the asylum process requires for credibility.^[19] This leads to Lewis and Naples’ critique to the fact that asylum officials often assume that since women do not live such public lives as men do, that they would be safe from abuse or persecution, in comparison to gay men who are often part of the public sphere.^[17] This argument violates the basic concept that one's sexual orientation is a fundamental right and that family and the private sphere are often the first spaces where lesbians experience violence and discrimination.^[17] Because lesbians live such hidden lives, they tend to lack police reports, hospital records, and letters of support from witnesses, which decreases their chances of being considered credible and raises the stakes of effectively telling their stories in front of asylum officials.^[17]

LGBT individuals have a higher risk for mental health problems when compared to cis-gender counterparts and many transgender individuals face socioeconomic difficulties in addition to being an asylum seeker. In a study conducted by Mary Gowin, E. Laurette Taylor, Jamie Dunnington, Ghadah Alshuwaiyer, and Marshall K. Cheney of Mexican Transgender Asylum Seekers, they found 5 major stressors among the participants including assault (verbal, physical and sexual), "unstable environments, fear for safety and security, hiding undocumented status, and economic insecurity."^[21] They also found that all of the asylum seekers who participated reported at least one health issue that could be attributed to the stressors. They accessed little or no use of health or social services, attributed to barriers to access, such as fear of the government, language barriers and transportation.^[21] They are also more likely to report lower levels of education due to few opportunities after entering the United States. Many of the asylum seeker participants entered the United States as undocumented immigrants. Obstacles to legal services included fear and knowledge that there were legal resources to gaining asylum.^[21]

Human Rights and LGBT advocates have worked to create many improvements to the LGBT Asylum Seekers coming into the United States and to give asylum seekers a chance to start a new life.^[22] A 2015 report issued by the LGBT Freedom and Asylum network identifies best practices for supporting LGBT asylum seekers in the US.^[23] The US State Department has also issued a factsheet on protecting LGBT refugees.^[24]

My Edits:

I will be deleting all of the above sections and replacing them with what I have below.

LGBTQ and Gender are just an edited version of what was already in the article, let me know if you think I should get rid of the 2nd two paragraphs of Gender and just have it be the concise first paragraph.

Historically, homosexuality was considered a deviant behavior in the US; as such, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 barred homosexual individuals from entering the United States due to concerns about their psychological health.^[7] One of the first successful LGBT asylum pleas to be granted refugee status in the United States due to sexual orientation was a Cuban national whose case was first presented in 1989.^[8] The case was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the barring of LGBT and queer individuals into the United States was repealed in 1990. The case, known as Matter of Acosta (1985), set the standard of what qualified as a "particular social group." This new definition of "social group" expanded to explicitly include homosexuality and the LGBTQI+ population. It considers homosexuality and gender identity a "common characteristic of the group either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences."^[9] The definition was intended to be open-ended in order to fit with the changing understanding of sexuality. This allows political asylum to some LGBT individuals who face potential criminal penalties due to homosexuality and sodomy being illegal in the home country who are unable to seek protection from the state.^[10][11]

Susan Berger argues that while homosexuality and other sexual minorities might be protected under the law, the burden of proving that they are an LGBT member demonstrates a greater immutable view of the expected LGBT performance.^[13] The importance of visibility is stressed throughout the asylum process, as sexuality is an internal characteristic. It is not visibly represented in the outside appearance.^[12] According to Amanda M. Gómez, sexual orientation identity is formed and performed in the asylum process.^[16] Unlike race or gender, in sexual orientation asylum claims, applicants have to prove their sexuality to convince asylum officials that they are truly part of their social group.^[16] Rachel Lewis and Nancy Naples argue that LGBTQI+ people may not seem credible if they do not fit Western stereotypes of what LGBTQI+ people look like^[17]. Dress, mannerisms, and style of speech, as well as not having had public romantic relationships with the opposite sex, may be perceived by the immigration judge as not reflective of the applicants’ sexual orientation.^[18] Scholars and legal experts have long argued that asylum law has created legal definitions for homosexuality that limit our understanding of queerness.^[16]

Human Rights and LGBT advocates have worked to create many improvements to the LGBT Asylum Seekers coming into the United States and to give asylum seekers a chance to start a new life.^[22] A 2015 report issued by the LGBT Freedom and Asylum network identifies best practices for supporting LGBT asylum seekers in the US.^[23] The US State Department has also issued a factsheet on protecting LGBT refugees.^[24]

Female asylum seekers may encounter issues when seeking asylum in the United States due to what some see as a structural preference for male narrative forms in the requirements for acceptance.^[13] Researchers, such as Amy Shuman and Carol Bohmer, argue that the asylum process produces gendered cultural silences, particular in hearings where the majority of narrative construction takes place.^[19] Cultural silences refers to things that women refrain from sharing, due to shame, humiliation, and other deterrents.^[19] These deterrents can make achieving asylum more difficult as it can keep relevant information from being shared with the asylum judge.^[19]

These experiences are articulated during the hearing process where the responsibility to prove membership is on the applicant.^[13][19][9] During the hearing process, applicants are encouraged to demonstrate persecution for gender or sexuality and place the source as their own culture. Shuman and Bohmer argue that in sexual minorities, it is not enough to demonstrate only violence, asylum applicants have to align themselves against a restrictive culture. The narratives are forced to fit into categories shaped by western culture or else they are found to be fraudulent.^[19]

Susan Berger argues that the relationship between gender and sexuality leads to arbitrary case decisions, as there are no clear guidelines for when the private problems becomes an international problem. According to Shuman and Bohmer, due to women's social position in most countries, lesbians are more likely to stay in the closet, which often means that they do not have the public visibility element that the asylum process requires for credibility.^[19] This leads to Lewis and Naples’ critique to the fact that asylum officials often assume that since women do not live such public lives as men do, that they would be safe from abuse or persecution, in comparison to gay men who are often part of the public sphere.^[17] This argument violates the concept that one's sexual orientation is a fundamental right and that family and the private sphere are often the first spaces where lesbians experience violence and discrimination.^[17] Because lesbians live such hidden lives, they tend to lack police reports, hospital records, and letters of support from witnesses, which decreases their chances of being considered credible and raises the stakes of effectively telling their stories in front of asylum officials.^[17]

Transgender individuals have a higher risk for mental health problems when compared to cis-gender counterparts. Many transgender individuals face socioeconomic difficulties in addition to being an asylum seeker. In a study conducted by Mary Gowin, E. Laurette Taylor, Jamie Dunnington, Ghadah Alshuwaiyer, and Marshall K. Cheney of Mexican Transgender Asylum Seekers, they found 5 major stressors among the participants including assault (verbal, physical and sexual), "unstable environments, fear for safety and security, hiding undocumented status, and economic insecurity."^[21] They also found that all of the asylum seekers who participated reported at least one health issue that could be attributed to the stressors. Participants accessed little or no use of health or social services, attributed to barriers to access, such as fear of the government, language barriers and transportation.^[21] They are also more likely to report lower levels of education due to few opportunities after entering the United States. Many of the asylum seeker participants entered the United States as undocumented immigrants. Obstacles to legal services included fear and knowledge that there were legal resources to gaining asylum.^[21]

United States asylum policy does not protect people who are fleeing gang violence. Currently gang violence does not fit under the claim of persecution based on social group^[25]. The rationale is that gangs do not target people based on their social group but rather they target anyone in their territory. Some argue that this amounts to a neglect by the US of people fleeing gang violence. In Central America, there are extremely high rates of gang violence, pushing people to flee their homes in search of safety. Ten percent of the Northern Triangles population has fled their homes in search of safety from gang violence; yet the US, the richest neighboring country, continually denies them entry or asylum.^[25]

Climate change and natural disasters have caused 265 million people to migrate since 2008^[26]. People who have been forced out of their homes and ways of life due to climate change are not recognized and protected under United States asylum policy because they do not fit under one of the protected categories of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group^[26]. There are not any protections for environmental refugees on the national, or even international, levels.^[27] While their homes and villages may be destroyed due to earthquakes, hurricanes, rising sea water etc., the U.S. does not provide them protection.

Sixty percent of asylum cases in the United States fail or are rejected^[28]. One third of asylum seekers applying for asylum go into court unrepresented. Asylum seekers with legal representation have a three times higher chance of winning their case^[29]. In 2015, the world saw the greatest displacement of people since World War II with 65.3 million people having to flee their homes.^[4] In fiscal year 2016, the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act (MRA) requested that $442.7 million be allocated to refugee admission programs that relocate refugees into communities across the country.^[5]

Once an asylum seeker enters the United States they have exactly one year to apply for asylum^[29]. During that year asylum seekers are responsible for providing their own legal assistance and representation^[29]. Until asylum seekers cases are approved, and sometimes even after approval and receipt of green cards, asylum seekers are at a constant risk of detention. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the authority to detain any person suspected of violating immigration laws. As of December 2018, 47,486 people were detained, yet of those 29,753 had no conviction while 11,000 had minor convictions^[30]. Detention centers are government-funded facilities modeled after U.S. prisons^[29]. Critics note that, though the United States does not provide legal assistance to asylum seekers, it appears willing to pay to detain tens of thousands of immigrants, including individuals seeking asylum from violence and persecution.^[30][29]

The United States does not fund legal representation for asylum seekers, but it does offer funding to aid the first 120 days of resettlement for people granted asylum. The Office of Refugee Resettlement provides funding to volags that are then responsible to aid asylees in becoming economically independent^[28]. These organizations help asylees find housing, get work permits, apply for social security cards, enroll in ESL classes, apply for Medicaid and find jobs^[28]. Many refugees depend on public benefits at first, but the goal is that over time they become self-sufficient^[1]. Availability of public assistance programs can vary depending on which states within the United States refugees are allocated to resettle in. In 2016, The American Journal of Public Health reported that only 60% of refugees are assigned to resettlement locations with expanding Medicaid programs, meaning that more than 1 in 3 refugees may have limited healthcare access^[3]. Immediately after being granted asylum people are able to apply for their immediate families to receive asylum.^[31] After one full year of protection in the United States asylees are able to apply for green cards, and four years later, for citizenship.^[31]

This is a user sandbox of Sion00. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help