Author: Evelyn Woo

  • The Rights of North Korean Defectors to the United States under Sections 207 and 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

    The Rights of North Korean Defectors to the United States under Sections 207 and 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

    Description of Issue

    North Korea is one of the United States’ toughest adversaries. The nation’s continuous nuclear development and human rights controversies have raised alarms for protecting global peace. Ruled by an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea restricts both the physical and digital contact of its people with the outside world. Nevertheless, thousands of North Koreans leave the country illegally to escape from surveillance and oppression. Most of those defectors resettle in South Korea, as they share a common ethnicity and language. However, Congress also facilitates the entry of North Koreans into the U.S. as refugees to provide new educational and economic opportunities. 

    Description of Legislation

    The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a federal law that governs immigration and naturalization in the United States. It was first enacted in 1952 and has been amended numerous times. In 1965, the INA abolished the national origins quota system, which diversified the racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. by expanding immigration from Asian and Latin American countries. While the INA does not explicitly mention North Koreans, Sections 207 and 208 provide a broad framework for the admission of refugees and asylees.

    Section 207 [8 U.S.C. 1157] of the INA, titled ‘Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency situation refugees,’ outlines procedures and criteria for accepting refugees. As per INA Section 101 [8 USC 1101], refugees cannot return to their home country due to a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In consultation with Congress, the President determines annually the maximum number of refugees that may resettle in the United States. Refugees can obtain humanitarian assistance through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), including housing, healthcare, education services, and financial support. 

    Section 208 [8 U.S.C. 1158] of the INA, titled ‘Asylum,’ allows individuals who are already present in the U.S. or arrive in the U.S. to apply for asylum if they meet the refugee eligibility criteria. Given the extensive process for determining refugee status, asylum seekers receive certain protections before they are officially recognized as refugees. This includes the ability to seek employment in the U.S. and travel abroad with prior consent of the Attorney General. However, if asylees are no longer eligible for refugee status or commit a serious crime, their right to stay may be terminated. In that case, the individual may get deported to another country where their life or freedom would not be threatened. 

    Arguments in favor

    Demonstrates global leadership

    Sections 207 and 208 of the INA illustrate the U.S.’ commitment to providing humanitarian aid to individuals fleeing persecution, violence, and other forms of harm in their home countries. Proponents assert that welcoming refugees is foundational to the U.S.’ national identity as a nation founded by those escaping religious persecution. By coordinating the world’s most extensive refugee resettlement program, the U.S. sets a model for other countries to also contribute to alleviating global humanitarian crises. 

    Human rights activists argue that North Korea is an authoritarian regime that restricts all civil and political liberties for its citizens, and defectors should be protected under the INA. It is widely perceived that the North Korean government routinely uses torture, forced labor, and executions to maintain fear and control. In accepting North Korean refugees, the U.S. offers safety to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. 

    Flexible refugee resettlement ceiling

    Section 207 enables the current administration to determine the maximum number of refugees admitted to the U.S. yearly based on various humanitarian concerns, international obligations, and national interests. Notably, after President Trump’s election, he reduced the refugee resettlement ceiling to a historic low of 18,000 in 2020 to protect American jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon President Biden’s election, he raised the cap to 62,500 in 2021 and to 125,000 in 2022. 

    Collaborative consultation process

    The Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) utilizes the resources of several other national security agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, and Department of Defense, to approve refugees. A thorough consultation among multiple agencies helps ensure admission decisions are made responsibly to promote national interests. 

    Non-refoulement obligations

    The Principle of Non-refoulment under International Human Rights Law prohibits returning individuals to countries where they would face torture, cruel treatment, or other irreparable harm. In particular, the United Nations officially classifies North Koreans as “refugees sur place,” meaning that any nation that deports North Koreans violates the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The INA affirms the U.S.’ commitment to meet global human rights standards by protecting refugees. 

    Arguments against

    Numerical limitations

    Among over 108 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, the U.S. only admits a small fraction of them by setting an annual limit. Some advocate that the cap should increase to reflect the growing number of refugees. This would require a significant revision to Section 207 by preventing the presiding administration from changing the refugee admissions ceiling yearly and determining a higher quota permanently or removing the quota completely. 

    Despite the difficulty of escaping North Korea, tens of thousands of defectors are hiding in China, approximately 34,000 live in South Korea, and at least 2,000 have reached Europe and other Asian countries. However, the U.S. has only accepted around 200 North Korean refugees over the past two decades. Opponents of the fluid admissions ceiling believe that removing it could create stability and encourage the U.S. to accept more refugees. 

    Infrastructural limitations

    In recent years, the Biden Administration has struggled to admit more refugees due to slow processing and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2017, 134 resettlement sites nationwide have been forced to close due to funding cuts during the Trump Administration, leading to a 38% decrease in resettlement capacity. Agencies are hesitant to reopen offices and stretch their resources, only for resettlement caps to get slashed by the next administration. Additionally, the health risks of COVID-19 have disrupted in-person interviews for asylees since March 2020. While the Biden Administration has initiated some interviews using virtual teleconference (V-Tel) software, it has not adequately expanded its capacity. In 2023, the U.S. only admitted approximately 60,000 refugees out of 125,000 allocated spots. 

    Complex adjudication process

    The refugee adjudication process can be lengthy and complex, delaying assistance to people in urgent need. The USCIS conducts rigorous interviews to determine whether an individual satisfies refugee status. Refugees must also pass extensive background checks and medical screenings. On average, it takes nearly two years for refugees to be admitted to the U.S. By contrast, the resettlement process for North Korean defectors in South Korea begins almost immediately, and they are automatically granted citizenship. 

    Potential security concerns

    Despite strict screening measures, other critics are concerned about the potential security risks of the refugee admissions system. They argue that the process may not sufficiently prevent people with malicious intentions from entering the U.S. Out of over three million refugees who have entered the U.S., a handful have been implicated in terrorist plots. Of 192 foreign-born terrorists who committed attacks in the U.S. between 1975 and 2017, 25 were refugees. Of those attacks, three proved deadly, which occurred before the INA tightened its screening procedures in 1980. 

    Notably, in September 2017, the Trump Administration suspended the entry of North Koreans into the U.S., citing the country’s “provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies.” This executive order followed the death of an American student, Otto Warmbier, who was detained in North Korea and returned to the U.S. in a vegetative state. 

    In January 2018, the Trump Administration resumed accepting refugees from North Korea and ten other “high-risk” countries. Nevertheless, refugees from these countries are subject to stricter background checks from U.S. screeners. Given that American standards for accepting refugees are already considered some of the toughest in the world, critics view the additional screening measures as part of a broader goal to restrict all forms of immigration from “high-risk” countries. 

    Conclusion

    While Sections 207 and 208 of the INA serve as crucial mechanisms for providing refuge to vulnerable groups, they face critical challenges and limitations. Supporters of refugee admissions find it imperative for the U.S. to establish an efficient and just immigration system, especially for individuals who need shelter immediately, including those escaping North Korea. They claim that U.S. security measures against the North Korean regime should not target the people who are fleeing from the exact danger and remind us that government actions do not necessarily represent the masses.

  • Evelyn Woo

    Evelyn Woo

    Evelyn Woo is a recent graduate from the University of Oregon’s Robert D. Clark Honors College with a BA in Global Studies and Chinese. Starting in Fall 2024, Evelyn will pursue a JD at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. She joined the Foreign Policy (Asia) team to help debunk the misconceptions American voters often have about the opposite side of the world. Serving as a Research Associate has been a fulfilling experience to lead fellow students with similar policy interests.

  • Legal Protections for Undocumented North Korean Immigrants in Los Angeles under the California Values Act [SB 54]

    Legal Protections for Undocumented North Korean Immigrants in Los Angeles under the California Values Act [SB 54]

    Description of Issue 

    North Korea presents a severe humanitarian crisis, characterized by stringent controls over its citizens’ basic freedoms including movement, speech, health, and access to food. Domestic laws strictly forbid North Koreans from leaving their city or country without government authorization. Those found violating these laws or dissenting against the regime are often imprisoned in detention camps, where they face physical and verbal abuse. Despite these risks, thousands of North Koreans still choose to defect each year, seeking freedom from the oppressive government.

    While most North Korean defectors seek refuge in South Korea due to shared ethnicity and language, others head to the United States, drawn by different economic and educational opportunities. However, the U.S. refugee adjudication process is notoriously lengthy and complex, often taking nearly two years. As a result, some North Korean defectors end up living in hiding in the U.S. to avoid the protracted official immigration procedures.

    Los Angeles has the largest Korean American population in the U.S., with over 100,000 residents. An estimated 200 former North Koreans settle among them in L.A., though the exact numbers are unknown. They may have personal connections or have heard by word of mouth about L.A.’s prosperous Koreatown. 

    Description of Legislation

    California solidified its status as a sanctuary state by passing Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), titled the California Values Act, in October 2017. A sanctuary state actively offers political support to undocumented immigrants through an official government capacity. 

    SB 54 limits state and federal law enforcement authorities’ cooperation in reporting immigration status. Specifically, it prohibits state or local law enforcement from using resources or personnel “to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.” This includes inquiring into an individual’s immigration status or holding them in custody solely due to federal requests. However, state and local law enforcement agencies may report immigrants who have been convicted of serious or violent felonies in the past 15 years.

    Arguments in favor

    Protects immigrant communities

    SB 54 recognizes immigrants as valuable and essential members of the California community by prohibiting local and state agencies from transferring undocumented people into federal custody. This helps build trust between law enforcement and California residents, regardless of their legal status. The protections may encourage undocumented individuals to report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation. 

    Focus on public safety

    Proponents of SB 54 also contend that state funding cannot be commandeered to implement federal deportation programs. They advocate for dedicating valuable resources to policing local crimes and protecting the well-being of all residents. 

    In addition, SB 54 still allows local agencies to report to ICE any immigrant with a previous conviction from a list of approximately 800 crimes. The policy does not protect criminals, who are still charged, detained, convicted, and sentenced as appropriate.

    Supports due process rights

    Proponents also claim that SB 54 aligns with the Due Process Clause in the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which mandates the fair treatment of all individuals under the law. By restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities and prohibiting prolonged detention based on only immigration status, the Bill ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rights without due process.

    Moreover, such sanctuary policies help reduce the chances of being sued for potential constitutional violations. Several local jurisdictions, including the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, have been charged for unlawfully detaining immigrants in violation of due process procedures to meet Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests. Courts have awarded thousands of dollars to victims in damages, which these jurisdictions must pay, often without a promise of reimbursement from the federal government.

    Arguments against

    Conflict with federal law

    Opponents assert that SB 54 conflicts with federal immigration law and undermines the Executive Branch’s authority. While states are not obligated to participate in national immigration enforcement activities, federal law (8 USC § 1373) prohibits them from actively obstructing national law enforcement. Sanctuary policies, including SB 54, may violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the Tenth Amendment.

    Notably, in March 2018, the Trump Administration sued California by claiming that SB 54 interferes with federal immigration enforcement. However, the federal jury upheld the state’s sanctuary policy, claiming California has the right “to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”

    Potential public safety concerns

    Critics also argue that limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities under SB 54 poses public safety risks by making it easier for undocumented immigrants with criminal histories to stay in the U.S. In 2023, Border Patrol agents have allegedly encountered thousands of undocumented people with prior criminal convictions, including assault, rape, and murder. The true extent of crimes committed by undocumented individuals is unknown because there have been over 1.5 million unaccounted-for “getaways” since President Biden’s term began. They contend that states’ non-compliance with ICE policies disrupts efforts to identify and detain individuals who pose a threat to public safety.

    Potential national security concernsFurthermore, critics express concern that SB 54 may hinder cooperation and information sharing between state and federal law enforcement agencies, which may impede efforts to combat transnational crime and terrorism. They argue that collaboration between local, state, and federal authorities is imperative for effective law enforcement and national security.