Material Support Madness

Abdi is one of the Somali refugees that I’ve stayed in touch with since my days at the Refugee Legal Aid Project in Cairo three years ago. My sister helped him learn English when she was living with me and we threw a small celebration when UNHCR recognized him as a refugee: two other Somalis, Hardee’s, and some R. Kelly.

Abdi has a gentle smile and shy eyes. He has a hearing problem and a bit of a stutter. When I was back last August, I reconnected with those same three young Somalis. Once again we went to Hardee’s and took a felucca ride on the Nile. Since then, Max has been resettled to Arizona, where he’s learning to drive and working at Walmart. Hussein won an appeal to UNHCR and is now being considered for possible resettlement, but there’s still a long road ahead.

Abdi emailed me last week to tell me the bad news—he was denied resettlement to the US. He attached the US Immigration denial letter. The form letter had the box ‘persecutor’ checked as his reason for ineligibility. I was confused, considering I’d taken his testimony and was sure there was no way Abdi had been involved in any way in the persecution of others—he was certainly the victim. On the form, written by hand, was the code related to his inadmissibility: INA.212.a.3.b. I jumped online and found the law, which relates to terrorism.

And then it became clear: the US Patriot Act was to blame.

The issue had come up at work several months ago, but only in discussion because it hasn’t directly affected our office yet. The problem stems from expanded definitions of terrorism and the concept of ‘material support,’ which makes ineligible anyone who has given support to a terrorist organization (broadly defined as any group of two or more people who bear arms with the intent to endanger the safety of any individual). What becomes most problematic is that there is no distinction made between support given willing and that which is coerced. For example, a person who gives his car keys to a rebel when a gun is pointed at his head and his life depends on it would be deemed ineligible. The law has even been used against women who have been kidnapped by militias to be used as sex slaves—their rape is considered ‘support.’ Clearly this was not the intent of the law. The very events that demonstrate persecution and qualify someone as a refugee are leading to exclusion for resettlement.

Abdi, who is from a minority, unarmed clan, was kidnapped and forced to work for a powerful militia, loading and unloading bananas for a year. On the first chance, he escaped. He did not work by choice, but because he had no choice.

There has been a lot of lobbying against this immigration law because of its implications for refugees. Just last week, Condoleezza Rice announced a waiver was available to provide an immediate remedy to a problem that most likely needs a Congressional fix. This waiver, however, is limited to ethnic Karen Burmese in a specific refugee camp in Thailand. I don’t fully understand how the government can justify acknowledging that this law is being misapplied—that a waiver option is necessary—and then discriminately apply it to only a small segment of refugees affected. They say this waiver is being used on a trial basis, but then also state that waivers for additional populations are not foreseen in the near future.

I’ve still got my Legal Aid connections back in Cairo (now AMERA) and have rallied the troops there to look into Abdi’s case. At the helm is the matriarch of refugee studies worldwide and the founder of the legal aid program there, a 70+-year-old ex-American (she denounced her citizenship during the Vietnam War…if she hadn’t then, she sure would have by now!). I’m confident that Abdi is in good hands, but am afraid those hands may be tied…