Let Them Stay: Exploring U.S. Obligations to Protect Unaccompanied Minors and LGBTQI Asylum-Seekers Fleeing Central America

Abstract

As a signatory to the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the U.S. has certain legal obligations in providing humanitarian protection to refugees outside its borders and asylum seekers within its borders. Through its own domestic policies and practices, the U.S. is to follow international standards relating to asylum protection. Currently, the United Sates’ capability in effectively providing protection is being tested by a humanitarian and refugee crisis at its own borders. In the past years, hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied children and families have been apprehended at the border as they flee increasing violence and instability in their home countries in Central America. The vast majority of these potential refugees come from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

This thesis engages with the question of whether the U.S. is upholding its obligation to protect asylum seekers within its borders by focusing on two vulnerable groups of asylum-seekers: (1) unaccompanied minors and (2) LGBTQI individuals. This question is answered by applying what I refer to as the “four fundamental principles of international asylum protection” to U.S. domestic asylum policies. They are (1) the principle of non-discrimination, (2) the principle of non-refoulement, (3) the principle of non-penalization, and (4) the principle of unity of the family.

I argue that the U.S. has a two-fold responsibility in ensuring its laws follow international principles. First, and most importantly, this obligation originates from the U.N. Protocol. Second, the United States’ history of intervention in Central America should create another level of moral responsibility in at least ensuring that the rights of Central American asylum-seekers are not violated if they are within U.S. borders. Furthermore, this framework of international principles shows that while some U.S. practices adhere to the four fundamental principles, some policies undermine or violate these principles. This analysis reveals inconsistencies between U.S. domestic policies and international standards for asylum protection and I point to specific policy modifications that would significantly reduce or erase these inconsistencies. Finally, I end with a brief discussion on the feasibility of and possible strategies for implementing policy reforms.