Contributor: U.S. Abandoned Refugees During the Holocaust; Trump’s Libya Plan Risks Repeating History

In May 1939, a vessel named the St. Louis The vessel left Hamburg, Germany, carrying 937 people, predominantly Jewish individuals escaping the horrors of the Holocaust. These travelers were led to believe they would be permitted to land in Cuba. However, upon arriving at Havana’s port, the Cuban authorities denied docking permission. In response, the refugees fervently implored both the American public and officials like President Franklin D. Roosevelt for asylum in the U.S. Unfortunately, Roosevelt did not reply to these appeals. Instead, the State Department advised them to "await their turn" and proceed through legal channels for admission.

It was as though that were a feasible choice open to them.

Having waited near the coast of Florida anticipating a compassionate ruling from Washington, the St. Louis and its travelers sailed back to Europe as the Nazis 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 formulated an international agreement aimed at safeguarding individuals escaping persecution. This treaty became known as the 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 where individuals might be transferred to another nation which would subsequently deport them to a third country posing similar risks.

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 may face persecution (often cited using its French rendition as "non-refoulement"). Within the U.S., Congress passed the 1980 Refugee Act, which explicitly embraced the treaty’s wording. Additionally, the U.S. has signed onto the Convention Against Torture , which prevents the return of individuals to locations where they would face the risk of "being subjected to torture."

In both of Trump’s presidencies, he has employed numerous strategies aimed at dismantling and subverting the safeguards assured by treaty commitments and U.S. legislation. Among these actions, the most severe have included virtually complete underminings shutting down the border to people seeking refuge and the suspension of entry from refugees who have already been approved and vetted.

However, none of these measures has appeared so clearly designed to make a mockery of the post-World War II refugee protection framework as the administration’s proposals and attempts to transport migrants from the U.S. to Libya and Rwanda .

Even though there are circumstances under which the U.S. might legally transfer a migrant to another nation, it remains obligated to ensure this does not lead to a situation where the individual’s life or liberty is at risk. Selecting countries like Libya or Rwanda over nations such as Canada or France suggests a deliberate disregard for this restriction.

Libya has gained notoriety for its abuse of migrants , characterized by pervasive acts of torture, sexual violence, forced labor, starvation, and enslavement. Prominent human rights organizations like Amnesty International refer to this as a “hellscape.” The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has made it clear that Libya is not to be regarded as a secure third country For migrants, the U.S. is well-aware of the circumstances there; the State Department has even released statements on the matter. utmost alert status for Libya , warning against visiting Libya due to issues with crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnappings, and armed conflicts.

Even though the circumstances in Rwanda aren’t as severe, the highest courts of both countries share similarities. Israel and the United Kingdom has determined that arrangements to transfer migrants to Rwanda are illegal. Both nations tried to delegate their refugee responsibilities by designating Rwanda as a "safe third country" where asylum seekers would process 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' claims, opting instead to expel them summarily. This action led to their deportation back to nations where they faced persecution, which directly contravenes the principle prohibiting such actions known as refoulement. The U.K. court Additionally, Rwanda was noted for its subpar human rights standing, encompassing issues like "unlawful killings outside of legal proceedings, fatalities occurring during detention, forced vanishings, and acts of torture."

If the Trump administration demonstrated even a basic adherence to its international and domestic legal commitments, proposals to deport migrants to Libya or Rwanda would be untenable. However, these plans remain active, and it’s plausible to infer that their aim is to potentially weaken globally accepted principles of refugee assistance tracing back to World War II. What other reason could there be for selecting the two nations that have consistently been highlighted for infringing upon refugee rights?

Similar to what has happened in Israel and the U.K., there will likely be legal challenges if the U.S. proceeds with its proposal to send migrants to Libya and Rwanda. It’s difficult to envision a scenario where a court would deem such actions compliant with the U.S.’s legal duty of nonrefoulement when transferring individuals to those nations.

Despite the explicit wording of the treaty and statute, it has grown progressively more challenging to anticipate court decisions, particularly 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 framework – established as a reaction to the severe ethical lapse of rejecting the passengers of the St. Louis – remains crucial and merits our defense. It is essential for us to assert ourselves loudly. The unequivocal statement has to be made that people escaping oppression should never face being 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 Perspective."

This tale initially surfaced in Los Angeles Times .