6.2 Ethnical Reasoning
Ethical reasoning guarantees that proposed solutions undergo evaluation based on moral principles and societal values. Ethical considerations play a crucial role in ensuring the just distribution of resources and preventing disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations. In designing sustainable interventions that contribute to long-term societal well-being, ethical reasoning becomes instrumental. Ethical reasoning also ensures the inclusion of the interests and perspectives of all stakeholders, particularly marginalized groups, promoting inclusivity and fairness within the decision-making process. Adhering to legal frameworks and ethical standards is imperative in social problem-solving, and ethical reasoning ensures that actions remain aligned with moral principles. At its core, ethical reasoning is vital for advancing social justice by identifying and addressing systemic inequalities, discrimination, and biases that contribute to social problems. Additionally, ethical reasoning provides a structured framework for assessing new challenges, allowing for strategic adjustments while upholding a commitment to moral values.
Human Rights
Currently, around 263,000 refugees and 84,300 asylum seekers are living in the United States (UNHCR 2013). These numbers are expected to rise due to ongoing conflicts and political turmoil worldwide. Without widespread human rights violations, the number of displaced families, including immigrants and refugees, would be significantly lower. Families leave their home countries for various reasons, such as escaping oppressive regimes in Syria and Iraq or seeking better economic opportunities in Mexico and Latin America. The United States and other Western nations regularly receive immigrant and refugee families from across the globe, depending on the prevailing sociopolitical climate. While some families arrive intact, many others are separated and dispersed globally.
According to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the top five countries of origin for resettlement in the United States are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burma, Ukraine, Eritrea, and Afghanistan. President Trump’s introduction of additional refugee screening measures for certain countries may alter these demographics (MPI 2015). The controversy surrounding the admission of refugees from specific regions, such as Syria, continues to garner attention in the media and online. Following the November 2015 Paris attacks, fear prompted governors of 31 states to refuse Syrian refugees, although they lack authority over nationality laws (Barajas and Frazee 2015).
This section aims to offer a broad overview of human rights and essential concepts relevant to understanding the impact on immigrant and refugee families globally. It will explore the history and key theories of human rights law, as well as how various issues relating to the intersection of international human rights law and domestic sovereignty are addressed in the United States. Additionally, it will examine how specific human rights issues affect immigrant and refugee families in the United States. The module concludes with implications for research, policy, and practice, along with discussion questions and a case study.
Defining human rights
António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), stated that the “…UNHCR has never had to address so much human misery in its 64-year history” (Project Syndicate 2015). This underscores the significance of understanding and delving into the complexities of human rights. According to the UNHCR, human rights encompass “…inherent rights to all human beings, whatever the nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status.” This foundational definition is crucial for comprehending the global efforts to define and safeguard these rights. Understanding human rights involves moral values and ethical norms such as autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence, which have shaped international law since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 (Payne 2020).
While human rights are rooted in moral values, it’s essential to distinguish between values and rights. Values pertain to what is important, whereas human rights focus on social practices aimed at empowering individuals. A right confers a benefit and significant legitimacy within the governmental authority framework. According to Donnelly, “…a human rights conception of human dignity and political legitimacy rests on the fact that human beings have an essential, irreducible moral worth and dignity irrespective of the social groups to which they belong” (2003: 27). Universal human rights, in this context, refer to rights codified by the international community into legal frameworks.
Human rights, rooted in an ideal, serve as a social mechanism to ensure that all individuals can live with dignity. This concept is detailed in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1993), which views human rights as a fundamental moral principle (Donnelly 2003). The UDHR has inspired international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These agreements are formed by societies to establish global standards for behavior conducive to the well-being of all. Therefore, understanding human rights as a societal practice is crucial in assessing their impact on immigrant and refugee families.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In response to severe human rights abuses post-World War II, the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to prevent such atrocities from recurring. The UDHR preamble affirms the fundamental principle that every person possesses inherent dignity and equal, unalienable rights, forming the bedrock of global freedom, justice, and peace (OHCHR 1948). Following the preamble are 30 articles delineating the rights that every individual should have. Remarkably, the UNHCR reports that this document has been translated into 389 languages worldwide.
The UDHR includes both negative rights (e.g., freedom from torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and slavery) and positive rights (e.g., the right to own property, freedom of thought, and the right to marry). It also outlines fundamental human rights principles for the first time, such as universality, interdependence, indivisibility, equality, and non-discrimination. Moreover, it emphasizes that human rights entail not only entitlements but also responsibilities. This means that enjoying rights comes with the obligation to respect the rights of others. These principles have been echoed in numerous international human rights agreements following the UDHR. Together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the UDHR forms the cornerstone of international human rights law, serving as the legal foundation for subsequent human rights norms, standards, and regulations.
Human rights in the United States
Although human rights have gained international recognition, their application primarily occurs at the national level. According to Donnelly (2003), this presents a dual role for countries: as protectors and violators of human rights principles. In the United States, this dichotomy is evident in the contrast between the foundational laws and their equitable enforcement.
The Bill of Rights, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, outlines fundamental human rights akin to those upheld by international standards. Hence, the country’s founding values emphasize human rights (Donnelly 2003). This principle is common among liberal democracies, as noted by Koopmans (2012), who suggests that shared constitutional principles lead to similar rights across democracies. However, despite these ideals, there are instances where U.S. domestic policies infringe upon the rights of various groups within its population.
The primary human rights concerns in the United States center on immigrant and refugee families. The UNHCR highlights strategic priorities, including: (a) combating discrimination, (b) ensuring accountability, (c) addressing economic, social, and cultural rights, and fighting poverty, (d) safeguarding human rights amidst migration, (e) protecting rights during conflicts and insecurity, and (f) enhancing international human rights mechanisms and law development. Priorities (a), (c), and (d) are especially relevant to the current U.S. human rights landscape. Immigrant and refugee families encounter challenges such as classism, racism, sexism, religious discrimination, and economic instability.
The United States supported the UDHR but did not formally sign it. While scholars propose various explanations for this, many rights outlined in the UDHR are already protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The U.S.’s perceived exceptionalism to international norms has been evident in two main ways: the continued use of torture at Guantanamo Bay and the involvement of American social scientists in developing torture techniques. While the U.S. may sometimes diverge from international standards, this is not the primary focus here. According to the UNCHR, “national and local politicians have sought to mobilize electoral support by promoting xenophobic sentiments, exaggerating the negative impact of hosting refugees while ignoring the fact that refugees can actually attract international assistance and investment to an area, creating new jobs and trading opportunities” (2006:32). Thus, the refugee issue is frequently politicized in U.S. political discourse.
The current legal environment in the United States presents challenges for international human rights, especially regarding the legal status of displaced persons—those forced to leave their home countries due to conflict, persecution, or natural disasters. There are significant obstacles to utilizing international human rights arguments to advance the rights of displaced persons in the United States (Chilton 2014; Cole 2006; ICHR 2008). Despite its immigrant history, the U.S. legal system is characterized by nationalism and parochialism, as noted by Cole (2006). Moreover, “International human rights arguments are often seen as the advocates’ last refuge pulled out only when there is no other authority to cite” (Cole 2006).
However, the current trend appears to be steering the nation towards a transnational approach in how human rights law is understood and applied within the legal system and culture of the United States. This shift reflects the growing impact of globalization and interdependence, which has bolstered the influence of international human rights standards in the U.S. context. It is hoped that these standards will “command greater respect from our own domestic institutions” (Cole 2006: 643). Cole suggests that this paradigm shift mirrors the historical transition in the United States from state to federal power during the New Deal era of the 1930s. This indicates a potential for gradual change within the U.S. legal system regarding its acceptance of international human rights regimes, norms, and standards, as national and international domains merge.
Regarding refugee families and asylum seekers, while the terms are often used interchangeably, there are crucial legal distinctions between them. These disparities not only dictate the resources available to them upon arrival in the United States but also determine their position within the legal process. Since 2013, approximately 51.2 million people have been displaced due to persecution, war, violence, and human rights abuses (UNHCR 2018). In 2017, USCIS received 139,801 affirmative asylum applications, and the EOIR received 119,303 defensive asylum applications, but only 26,568 applications were approved (DHS 2019). The rest were either abandoned (1,439), withdrawn (6,400), or unaccounted for (11,391). Considering the recent United States population estimate of 318 million people, refugees constitute less than 1% of the population. Families seeking asylum often have significant traumatic histories and attract more attention in the public sphere than other types of immigrants. Most of these families are escaping extreme injustices in their home countries, such as war, political instability, genocide, and severe oppression. Due to the uncertainty of their situations, determining legitimate asylum eligibility remains challenging for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Government agencies face further complexity in deciding when and how to return rejected asylum seekers to their home countries (Koser 2007). While traditionally, international migration studies distinguish between refugees (involuntary migration) and labor seekers (voluntary migration), it’s evident that migration is driven by a complex array of reasons, including social factors (Koser 2007). If an asylum seeker’s claim is denied, they enter deportation proceedings overseen by an immigration judge (IJ) who, along with the asylum-seekers’ attorney, decides on the removal process. It’s worth noting that displaced persons are seldom detained or immediately deported to their country of origin.
In the past decade, the UNHCR has officially acknowledged gender as a crucial aspect of human rights. Their policy regarding refugee women recognizes that the experience of displacement affects men and women differently. Even outside of armed conflicts, women and children often face severe human rights violations due to gender-based discrimination and violence (Stange et al. 2012). These violations, rooted in historical views of women and children as property, deeply impact families.
Domestic violence disproportionately affects women and children. In immigrant families from patriarchal societies, traditional gender roles often persist, with women managing the household while men are the primary earners, even when both work outside the home. This imbalance of power can heighten the risk of domestic violence within these relationships (Perilla 1999). Additionally, when immigrant women gain autonomy and gender equity through employment, it can further threaten male self-esteem, already affected by classism, racism, and legal status (Mahler and Pessar 2006).
Children of displaced families, particularly asylum-seekers, often lack health insurance and access to public programs due to their legal status (Blewett et al. 2010). Traumatic events affect all family members, impacting the family as a whole (Nickerson et al. 2011). Detention and deportation separate families and hinder access to necessary resources, leading immigrant families to be cautious about seeking services due to fear of immigration enforcement.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a human rights issue, increasingly relevant due to refugees from East and West Africa arriving in the United States. Although practiced in some Muslim communities, it lacks religious mandate (Cook et al. 2002). Despite being illegal in many African nations, it remains widespread. Enforcement challenges persist, as seen in the anecdote of Fatima, who questioned the enforceability of laws against FGM (Personal communication 2011).
According to Mather and Feldman-Jacobs (2015), over 500,000 girls and women in the United States have undergone genital mutilation, which is considered a violation of human rights due to its severe health consequences. Despite familial consent, such procedures are never legally acceptable (Cook et al. 2002). Recommendations emphasize education and counseling for affected women rather than strict legal enforcement. While illegal in the U.S., the practice persists, often driven underground by shame and stigma. Although some may seek asylum based on FGM, many refrain due to discomfort (USCIS 2019). In 2012, the United Nations issued a resolution urging the global eradication of FGM, labeling it as a severe form of gender-based discrimination (WHO 2024a; WHO 2024b). The hope is that this ban will expedite the elimination of this harmful practice worldwide.
The United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines trafficking as the “…recruitment, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by any means of threat or force…for the purpose of exploitation.” This crime is broadly categorized as either sex trafficking or labor trafficking. Since 2001, the United States has seen an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 victims of sex trafficking and 40,000 to 50,000 individuals subjected to forced labor or sexual servitude.
In fiscal year 2011, the leading countries of origin for foreign victims included Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, Guatemala, Honduras, and India (DOJ 2012). Notable prosecutions in 2011 “included those of sex and labor traffickers who used threats of deportation, violence, and sexual abuse to compel young, undocumented Central American women and girls into hostess jobs and forced prostitution in bars and nightclubs on Long Island, New York” (DOS 2012). Globally, an estimated 4.5 million women, men, and children are sexually exploited according to the International Labor Organization (2019). While there are legal provisions in the United States for trafficking victims who cooperate in prosecuting their traffickers, such as a self-petitioned visa providing four years of legal status, only a fraction of victims receive immigration aid compared to those identified as victims of sex trafficking (DOS 2012).
Human trafficking presents significant human rights concerns, particularly regarding the physical safety and sexual exploitation of immigrant and refugee women and children. Contrary to common belief, sex trafficking involves not only young girls but also boys, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations such as immigrant and refugee families in the United States (DOS 2012).
One of the most urgent human rights concerns facing displaced individuals in the United States today is the situation of mixed-status families, where some members hold legal documentation while others do not. These families consist of individuals with varying levels of legal status, such as asylum-seekers, permanent residents, citizens, and undocumented migrants. While children born to undocumented parents in the U.S. typically gain citizenship by birth, their parents’ legal status remains unchanged. An exception arises when undocumented parents return to their home country and wait until their child turns 18, enabling the child to sponsor their parents for U.S. citizenship. The presence of both documented and undocumented members in these families creates uncertainty and significant vulnerabilities.
Research by Brabeck and Xu (2010) on the impact of detention and deportation on Latinx/e immigrant children revealed that the legal insecurity of their parents significantly affects child well-being. The uncertainty over whether parents can remain in the U.S. on a day-to-day basis takes a toll on children. Kanstroom (2010) highlights the tension between international human rights norms and U.S. immigration practices; noting that while states have the authority to deport noncitizens, they also have obligations to uphold procedural fairness, preserve family unity, and ensure proportionality. When these norms are violated, the state may be required to provide remedies. However, the clash between international human rights standards and U.S. political realities persists, leaving this issue unresolved.
In 2011, the United States Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allowing indefinite detention without charge or trial, reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Detaining refugees in this manner causes unnecessary psychological harm and violates human rights principles outlined in the ICCPR preamble (Prasow 2012). The idea of indefinite detention without constitutional protections for citizens, documented, or undocumented immigrants contradicts international human rights law and is opposed by civil liberties groups. Efforts to repeal or amend the NDAA began in late 2012, with Senator Dianne Feinstein of California stating, “Just think of it. If someone is of the wrong race and they are in a place where there is a terrorist attack, they could be picked up, they could be held without charge or trial for month after month, year after year. That is wrong” (Prasow 2012). While Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to protect citizens and lawful residents, undocumented immigrants would remain vulnerable to indefinite detention without charge or trial.
Emerging Directions
While human rights literature often overlooks the family unit, the United Nations recognizes the “…family is the basic unit of society” (UN n.d.). Consequently, the treatment of immigrant and refugee families in the United States significantly impacts their human rights. Issues such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), deportation of undocumented immigrants separating families, prolonged detention, and sex trafficking have profound negative effects on families. Despite discussions primarily focusing on individual and community rights, there’s a notable absence of family-specific references in human rights literature.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), concentrating on individuals and state actors, contributes to this research gap. However, a deeper understanding of how human rights issues affect families is crucial for supporting immigrant and refugee families effectively. Questions such as how families perceive their situations uniquely, whether family structures offer protective measures, and the dynamics of women’s and children’s issues in this context require exploration. Particularly urgent is further research into how mixed-status immigrant families navigate the challenges of varying documentation and legal statuses within a single-family unit.
