PRIVATE VIOLENCE

The disconnect between U.S. asylum policies and the reality of women fleeing gender-based violence.

Cleaveland, a social worker who since 2015 has been involved in assessing claims of asylum seekers, and Waslin, whose research focuses on asylum and immigration policy, make a compelling debut with this detailed analysis of the experiences of 46 women from Central America and Mexico seeking asylum in the U.S. The authors draw on interviews with the women and immigration attorneys, as well as the “pro bono psychosocial assessments” they have provided, at attorneys’ request, “to document asylum seekers’ credibility and to ascertain the impact of trauma.” Their observations of closed court proceedings and redacted asylum decisions contribute to a dismaying picture of the women’s plights both in their countries of origin and in the U.S. government’s “adversarial judicial process.” That process, the authors assert, “is informed by restrictive policies and the assumed ascription of illegality,” which became even more draconian under the Trump administration. Criteria for granting asylum, the authors reveal, were created for victims of political persecution, not for survivors of so-called private violence. Gender-based violence perpetrated by domestic partners or gangs is the reason for these women’s plea for asylum: beatings, rape, murder of family members, threats with weapons, incest, and child kidnapping. “Private violence,” the authors argue, is a misnomer for violence rooted in public factors: Political violence and the drug war exacerbate conditions for gender-based violence in countries where machismo culture normalizes women’s subjugation. Lacking educational and job opportunities and community support, these women feel they have no choice but to flee. After surrendering to border patrol agents, they are sent to demeaning detention centers and over several years undergo repeated hostile interviews to determine whether they have been traumatized enough to warrant asylum. Their harrowing stories amply support the authors’ persuasive argument in favor of systemic, humane immigration policy reform.

A timely, eye-opening study.