Synopses & Reviews
Through the Refugee Act of 1980, the United States offers the prospect of safety to people who flee to America to escape rape, torture, and even death in their native countries. In order to be granted asylum, however, an applicant must prove to an asylum officer or immigration judge that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in her homeland. The chance of winning asylum should have little if anything to do with the personality of the official to whom a case is randomly assigned, but in a ground-breaking and shocking study, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag learned that life-or-death asylum decisions are too frequently influenced by random factors relating to the decision makers. In many cases, the most important moment in an asylum case is the instant in which a clerk randomly assigns the application to an adjudicator. The system, in its current state, is like a game of chance.
Refugee Roulette is the first analysis of decisions at all four levels of the asylum adjudication process: the Department of Homeland Security, the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the United States Courts of Appeals. The data reveal tremendous disparities in asylum approval rates, even when different adjudicators in the same office each considered large numbers of applications from nationals of the same country. After providing a thorough empirical analysis, the authors make recommendations for future reform. Original essays by eight scholars and policy makers then discuss the authors research and recommendations
Contributors: Bruce Einhorn, Steven Legomsky, Audrey Macklin, M. Margaret McKeown, Allegra McLeod, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Margaret Taylor, and Robert Thomas.
Review
“Refugee Roulette reveals how far the nations asylum adjudication system has veered from its traditional moorings of equal justice under law and protection for those in danger of political persecution. The authors bring impressive experience, care, and seasoned judgment to the table. Refugee Roulette should serve as a blueprint for action by policymakers and a new administration.”
-Doris Meissner,Former Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Service and Senior Fellow, Migration Polic
Review
“This pathbreaking study of the asylum system in the United States, coupled with the comparative commentary, reveals the enormous challenges of making fair decisions about asylum claims when the underlying facts are far away and decisions rest on assessments of credibility—of people who often do not speak the language of the judge. At its core, this work raises the profound question of when a system of decision making qualifies to be called a ‘court. ”
-Judith Resnik,Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Review
“Insiders have long bemoaned the arbitrary and unfair outcomes of the U.S. asylum system. Finally we have a meticulous and compelling study that lays bare the indisputable problems and essential remedies for all to see.”
-Jacqueline Bhabha,Jeremiah Smith Jnr Lecturer, Harvard Law School, Director, University Committee on Human Rights Studies
Review
“A clarion call for a new humanitarian and transparent system that must be brought into line with our supposed democratic principles, particularly in this era of Obama reform. A must-read for students of immigration law and international human rights.”
- David Brotherton, Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York
Review
“Refugee Roulette reveals how far the nations asylum adjudication system has veered from its traditional moorings of equal justice under law and protection for those in danger of political persecution. The authors bring impressive experience, care, and seasoned judgment to the table. Refugee Roulette should serve as a blueprint for action by policymakers and a new administration.”
- Doris Meissner, Former Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Service and Senior Fellow, Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
“This pathbreaking study of the asylum system in the United States, coupled with the comparative commentary, reveals the enormous challenges of making fair decisions about asylum claims when the underlying facts are far away and decisions rest on assessments of credibilityof people who often do not speak the language of the judge. At its core, this work raises the profound question of when a system of decision making qualifies to be called a ‘court. ”
- Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
“Insiders have long bemoaned the arbitrary and unfair outcomes of the U.S. asylum system. Finally we have a meticulous and compelling study that lays bare the indisputable problems and essential remedies for all to see.”
- Jacqueline Bhabha, Jeremiah Smith Jnr Lecturer, Harvard Law School, Director, University Committee on Human Rights Studies
“A clarion call for a new humanitarian and transparent system that must be brought into line with our supposed democratic principles, particularly in this era of Obama reform. A must-read for students of immigration law and international human rights.”
- David Brotherton, Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York
Review
"[T]his is research in the best tradition: it confirms what you largely know already but gives you the ammunition to prove it."
“The study concerns one 'big idea' which, importantly, is accessible to both lawyers and laymen without any special jurisprudential or philosophical introduction: the right to have like cases treated alike… [The authors] seem to be stones that have rubbed each other smooth. Their prose is beautifully clear throughout.”
“Refugee Roulette reveals how far the nation’s asylum adjudication system has veered from its traditional moorings of equal justice under law and protection for those in danger of political persecution. The authors bring impressive experience, care, and seasoned judgment to the table. Refugee Roulette should serve as a blueprint for action by policymakers and a new administration.”
“This pathbreaking study of the asylum system in the United States, coupled with the comparative commentary, reveals the enormous challenges of making fair decisions about asylum claims when the underlying facts are far away and decisions rest on assessments of credibility—of people who often do not speak the language of the judge. At its core, this work raises the profound question of when a system of decision making qualifies to be called a ‘court.’ ”
“Insiders have long bemoaned the arbitrary and unfair outcomes of the U.S. asylum system. Finally we have a meticulous and compelling study that lays bare the indisputable problems and essential remedies for all to see.”
Review
"Andrews does a superb job in offering solutions to familiar problems for African Americans. Complete with charts, graphs, facts and figures, the author provides readers with a vivid display of how the scales of equality, wealth and power are tipped against people of color."-Upscale,
Review
"Andrews' aim is to paint an intellectually defensible and decidedly anti-conservative picture of the complicated tie between race and economic wellbeing."-Booklist,
Review
"Fiery, passionate, and provocative, but also unflinchingly rigorous in its argument. It is rare for an economist to write with such fire bolstered by such a commitment to logical reasoning."-William A. Darity Jr.,
Review
"Marcellus Andrews has written a fascinating and theoretically grounded account of the relationship between America's market economy and the prospects faced by African Americans."-The Journal of Economic Issues,
Review
"Deserves the close attention of both academic experts and the lay public alike. Marcellus Andrews's rare and wonderful achievement is to combine the compassion and intensity of the engaged social critic with the analytical detachment and discipline of the social scientist. His argument—for which the stake is nothing less than the soul of our nation—will unsettle the reader, and that is exactly as it should be."-Glenn C. Loury,Boston University
Review
“[T]his is research in the best tradition: it confirms what you largely know already but gives you the ammunition to prove it.”-Justice Journal ,
Review
“The study concerns one ‘big idea which, importantly, is accessible to both lawyers and laymen without any special jurisprudential or philosophical introduction: the right to have like cases treated alike… [The authors] seem to be stones that have rubbed each other smooth. Their prose is beautifully clear throughout.”-Modern Law Review,
Synopsis
Popular liberal writing on race has relied on appeals to the value of "diversity" and the fading memory of the Civil Rights movement to counter the aggressive conservative assault on liberal racial reform generally, and on black well-being, in particular. Yet appeals to fairness and justice, no matter how heartfelt, are bound to fail, Marcellus Andrews argues, since the economic foundations of the Civil Rights movement have been destroyed by the combined forces of globalization, technology, and tight government budgets.
The Political Economy of Hope and Fear fills an important intellectual gap in writing on race by developing a hard-nosed economic analysis of the links between competitive capitalism, racial hostility, and persistent racial inequality in post-Civil Rights America. Andrews speaks to the anger and frustration that blacks feel in the face of the nation's abandonment of racial equality as a worthy objective by showing how the considerable difficulties that black Americans face are related to fundamental changes in the economic fortunes of the U.S.
The Political Economy of Hope and Fear is an economist's plea for unsentimental thinking on matters of race to replace the mixture of liberal hand wringing and conservative mythmaking that currently passes for serious analysis about the nation's racial predicament.
About the Author
Jaya Ramji-Nogales is Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute for International Law and Public Policy at Temple Universitys Beasley School of Law.
Andrew I. Schoenholtz is Visiting Professor, Director of the Human Rights Institute, and Director of the Center for Applied Legal Studies at Georgetown University Law Center. He is Deputy Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.
Philip G. Schrag is the Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest Law and Director of the Center for Applied Legal Studies at Georgetown University Law Center.