Contributor: How the U.S. Abandoned Refugees During the Holocaust—and Trump’s Plan for Libya Risks Repeating History

In May 1939, a vessel named the St. Louis They left Hamburg, Germany, carrying 937 individuals, primarily Jewish refugees escaping the atrocities of the Holocaust. These people were led to believe they would be permitted to land in Cuba. However, upon arrival at Havana’s harbor, Cuban authorities denied docking permission. In desperation, these travelers implored both the American public and specifically President Franklin D. Roosevelt for admission into the United States. Despite their urgent appeals, Roosevelt did not reply. Instead, the State Department advised them to "await their turn" and proceed through proper legal channels for immigration.

It was as though that were a feasible choice for them.

Having waited near Florida's shores for a compassionate ruling from Washington, the St. Louis and its travelers headed back to Europe as Nazi forces advanced across the continent. In the end, 254 passengers aboard the vessel perished during the Holocaust.

In reaction to this disgraceful inability to offer protection, countries across the globe united and created an international agreement aimed at safeguarding individuals escaping persecution. This agreement became known as the treaty. 1951 Refugee Convention , and its 1967 Protocol , has been approved by more than 75% Of countries, such as the United States.

Since the disaster involving the St. Louis was still fresh in the minds of those drafting the treaty, they explicitly prohibited the return of asylum seekers to nations where their "life or freedom could be jeopardized." This rule also applies to scenarios wherein individuals might be transferred to another nation which subsequently sends them to a third country posing similar risks to their safety and liberty.

All nations that have ratified the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees must adhere to this ban on returning individuals to places where they face persecution, often called "non-refoulement" after its French designation. Within the U.S., Congress passed the 1980 Refugee Act, which explicitly embraced the treaty wording. Additionally, the U.S. has signed onto the Convention Against Torture , which prohibits the return of individuals to places where they would be in danger of “being subjected to torture.”

In both of Trump’s presidencies, he has employed numerous methods to dismantle and subvert the safeguards mandated by treaties and US laws. Among the harshest actions were those approaching complete eradication. shutdown of the border to people seeking asylum and the suspension of entry from refugees who have already been approved and vetted.

Nevertheless, none of these policies have been as evidently aimed at ridiculing the refugee protection system established after World War II as the measures taken by the administration. proposals and attempts to send migrants from the U.S. to Libya and Rwanda .

Although there are situations in which the U.S. could lawfully send a migrant to a third country, it would still be bound by the obligation not to return the person to a place where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” The choices of Libya and Rwanda — rather than, for example, Canada or France — can only be read as an intentional and open flouting of that prohibition.

Libya is notorious for its abuse of migrants , involving extensive use of torture, sexual violence,forced labor, starvation, and enslavement. Prominent organizations like Amnesty International refer to it as a “hellscape.” The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has unequivocally declared that Libya is not intended to be deemed a safe third country For migrants, the U.S. is well-aware of the conditions there; the State Department has even released a statement on this issue. maximal alert status for Libya , warning against visiting Libya due to high levels of crime, terrorist activities, civil unrest, kidnappings, and armed conflicts.

Even though the circumstances in Rwanda aren’t as severe, the Supreme Courts of these two countries share similarities. Israel and the United Kingdom The court has determined that arrangements to transfer migrants to Rwanda are illegal. Both nations tried to delegate their responsibilities towards refugees by designating Rwanda as a "safe third country" where asylum seekers would submit their applications for protection.

The supreme courts of Israel and the U.K. determined that Rwanda—despite claiming otherwise at the time of signing these accords—had actually declined to assess the asylum seekers' applications, opting instead for routine deportations. This practice led to their forced returns to nations where they faced persecution, thereby breaching international law’s strict ban against refoulement. The U.K. court Additionally, Rwanda was criticized for its poor human rights standing, mentioning "unlawful killings outside legal proceedings, fatalities occurring during detention, forced disappearances, and instances of torture."

If the Trump administration had even a minimal commitment to abide by its international and domestic legal obligations, plans to send migrants to Libya or Rwanda would be a nonstarter. But the plans are very much alive, and it is not far-fetched to assume that their intent is to potentially weaken global agreements on refugee rights further tracing back to World War II. What other reason would there be for selecting these two nations that have consistently been highlighted for infringing upon the rights of refugees?

Similar to what has happened in Israel and the U.K., legal challenges are expected if the U.S. proceeds with its proposal to send asylum seekers to Libya and Rwanda. It seems unlikely that any court would deem it acceptable for the U.S. to transfer migrants to these nations without violating international laws against forced return, particularly concerning nonrefoulement commitments.

That being said, even though the wording of both the treaty and statute is quite explicit, it has grown progressively more challenging to anticipate judicial decisions since the Supreme Court has weighed in. decisions overturning long-accepted precedent, and lower courts have reached diametrically opposed stances on several of the most controversial immigration topics.

During such periods, we shouldn’t rely exclusively on the judicial system. Many individuals within the U.S. share the belief that the global refugee protection framework—established following the significant ethical lapse of rejecting the refugees aboard the St. Louis—is crucial enough to advocate for vigorously. It is imperative that we assert our views loudly. The unmistakable stance ought to be that people escaping oppression should under no circumstances be sent back into harm’s way.

If we adopt this position, we will find ourselves among esteemed companions. who survived the Holocaust and keep speaking up for the rights of all refugees .

Karen Musalo serves as a law professor and founded the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law in San Francisco. Additionally, she is the primary co-author of "Refugee Law and Policy: A Comparative and International Approach."

This tale initially surfaced in Los Angeles Times .