Love Without Borders: The Necessity for Prioritizing LGBTQ+ Refugees
By Jacob Wisnik
In August of 2014 a young refugee named Yusef arrived in San Francisco. He spoke no English and had barely survived the journey to America, but he was finally safe. As a gay man living in Uganda, Yusef had been subject to untold persecution by the police and his own family. He was imprisoned after being caught with another man and renounced by his mother because of his sexuality. Yusef escaped to neighboring Kenya and found his way to the UNHCR’s Kakuma refugee camp. Unfortunately the camp could not offer Yusef safety; when other refugees learned of his sexuality, he became a target for violence and verbal harassment. Yusef was stabbed in one such attack and had to be moved to a hospital in Nairobi for medical attention. After two years, Yusef was finally allowed to resettle in the United States with support from HIAS, a nonprofit humanitarian organization. Stories like Yusef’s are not uncommon, however they rarely end with successful resettlement in tolerant countries. Resettling LGBTQ+ refugees can be challenging, predominantly due to the small number of nations able to offer an open life with legal protections. These refugees are some of the most at-risk of violence perpetrated by their families, communities, and governments.
According to the BBC, there are still 69 countries whose laws criminalize homosexuality around the globe. (Team 1). The number of Countries tolerant and welcoming to the LGBTQ+ community has slowly grown, but there are less than 20 nations with full legal equality for such individuals. Friendly nations have a moral and practical prerogative to take stronger stances against persecution of the queer community in an international context; by promoting tolerance and acceptance of non-heteronormative individuals, the small group of nations capable of offering such refugees a safe environment will be expanded. This would then diminish the burden placed on said small group and increase opportunities for the successful relocation of LGBTQ+ asylum seekers.
Generally, the question of refugee prioritization is dependent on which individuals are most imminently vulnerable. This ideal is logical but often becomes complicated as judgment must be used to determine who is under the greatest threat. The UN Refugee Agency, or UNHCR, generally prioritizes individuals to countries of resettlement after determining they face “persecution of the most compelling sort.” Then domestic institutions in these countries must approve of the case before refugees are granted the right to resettle. While every refugee experiences a legitimate right to be granted asylum, LGBTQ+ refugees often experience a higher level of danger throughout the process of finding a new home. Several LGBTQ+ refugees have described experiences of “severe abuse and discrimination” from others in migration camps. (Alessi 5). While most individuals are in comparative safety after reaching migration camps, the danger of persecution does not cease for LGBTQ+ refugees until they are safely resettled in a tolerant country. The constant risks these refugees live with, even after escaping from their homes, explain the need for their prioritization. Furthermore, the number of countries that can offer a truly safe and accepting haven for LGBTQ+ refugees is severely limited.
In her article discussing the philosophy behind prioritizing LGBTQ+ refugees, University of Norway professor Annamari Vitikainen writes, “LGBT status of a refugee, even when incidental, makes them vulnerable to various forms of persecution, discrimination, and structural injustice, and this should be taken into account in refugee admissions” (65). Many LGBTQ+ refugees experience imminent danger in their communities from hostile peers and government-backed discrimination, as seen in the case of Yusef. Even countries without legal rhetoric specifically punishing homosexual activity can fail to support their citizens through a lack of legal protections for homophobically motivated violent crimes. In these cases, there is a disparity between the number of countries willing to take refugees and the countries that can also provide legal protections as well as a socially accepting environment for those who don’t identify as heterosexual. This disparity demonstrates why the few nations that are able to provide a welcoming environment for non-heteronormative refugees need to prioritize granting them entry.
Some would argue that the countries offering a safe haven for LGBTQ+ refugees are often wealthier liberal democracies and it would be unfair to give certain refugees priority in these desirable locations. Most refugees would prefer to be resettled in a country with progressive politics and a highly developed economy such as Canada compared to a less wealthy, more conservative nation like Turkey. While the economic opportunities in Canada might be better than those in Turkey, both countries would offer relative safety for most heterosexual asylum seekers. That said, an LGBTQ+ refugee would not experience a welcoming or particularly tolerant environment in Turkey. Comparatively, Canada offers legal protections for gay and trans individuals that aren’t available in Turkey. (Alessi 7). The example becomes more complicated if a heterosexual identifying refugee faces vulnerabilities such as being Christian, which would bring its own forms of discrimination in Turkey. In this example, neither refugee should be placed in Turkey for each individual’s safety. That said, the LGBTQ+ individual would face immediate danger in a refugee camp so their resettlement would be more urgent than that of the Christian individual. Additionally, there is a larger pool of countries welcoming to Christian refugees versus the limited amount friendly to LGBTQ+ asylum seekers.
In the United States the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, classifies refugees into categories based on priority. The priorities are divided as follows; “priority one individuals are those who were referred by the UNHCR, a U.S. embassy, or a nongovernmental organization and are suffering from persecution of the most compelling sort; priority two individuals belong to groups of special concern to the United States and are selected by the Department of State, and priority three individuals are relatives of refugees who have already settled in the United States” (Morico 198). These subjective criteria seem intentionally unclear, likely to give flexibility in the admission process. For example, due to fears of Taliban violence the US government announced a widespread priority 2 designation to many Afghan nationals in a Department of State announcement on August 2nd of last year.
Despite vague criteria used in the INA, it is generally accepted that danger is the most important determinant. Safety is the only relevant factor that should be considered when granting asylum to a refugee; economic opportunities are undoubtedly less essential compared to physical well-being. There are several groups of refugees at-risk of physical abuse including women and children, especially those traveling alone. Along with LGBTQ+ refugees, these groups should also be prioritized to ensure they face as little time in camps as possible, however it becomes difficult to quantify which individuals in these groups face the greatest danger. In addition to prioritizing LGBTQ+ refugees who are at risk of violence, progressive liberal democracies should use their international power to promote tolerance.
In 2019 the European nation of Poland produced anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment when several regions declared themselves “LGBT-Free Zones” (Ciobanu 1). These declarations were mainly symbolic but intended to publicly reject ideas of homosexual tolerance and ban equality marches. While politicians in the affected regions claimed the point was to prevent pushing LGBT Ideology on Polish youth, the purpose of these zones was clearly to suppress homosexual Poles from living openly. Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice party has gained traction in recent years and used increasingly homophobic rhetoric in 2019; “Anti-LGBT rhetoric was a big [Law and Justice] campaign theme in the run-up to European Parliament elections in May, with the party disparaging LGBT rights as foreign ideas harmful to traditional values in Poland, a Catholic country” (Ciobanu 4). The European Union condemned these heinous declarations but took little substantive action to stop Poland’s anti-LGBTQ+ shift. President of the EU commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, responded to the events in Poland with combative words during her first speech in December of 2019. Unfortunately, there were little more than words that Von Der Leyen offered.
Liberal democracies have both a moral and practical incentive to push for widespread tolerance of the LGBTQ+ community. Current trends coupled with a lack of accountability that the European Union is placing on Poland for its homophobic legislation make it a lamentable environment for LGBTQ+ refugees. Poland’s right-wing shift has caused a backsliding of social tolerance which increases the burden on other members of the European Union to take in refugees who wouldn’t be welcome in Polish society. Part of the issue is that Poland’s identity as a Catholic and Eastern European country with conservative ideals can cause clashes against what is perceived as western influence. There is also an economic incentive for Poland to refuse refugees, as the initial costs to absorb them is high. The European Union has multiple tools to effect and reprimand Poland. Withholding EU funding is a diplomatic way to bring the Polish conservative government to the table and could be used as a bartering chip to stop state-sponsored homophobia. A more all-encompassing approach would be to target Polish citizens with messages about LGBTQ+ persecution. If the population were to be swayed on the subject of acceptance, it could potentially lead to the election of a more progressive government. At the same time, it is important not to make the Polish people feel as though they are being forced to accept a western idea as this could cause even more backsliding.
On the topic of international influences bringing visibility to issues like homophobia, Phillip Ayoub, a Professor of Diplomacy and World Affairs at Occidental College, argues for the successful spreading of progress through international movements. While discussing Germany’s involvement with LGBTQ+ awareness in Poland, Ayoub states, “Transnational ties also pass on knowledge and best practice. The German Green Party, for example, sent representatives to Warsaw to train activists, using their experiences as a movement-turned-party in Germany. These ties helped domestic movements create a space for LGBT visibility in Poland” (310). Progressive nations have the ability to spread ideas of tolerance and human rights — especially to their neighbors. Cultural diffusion is able to occur more easily now thanks to progress in transportation, technology, and the impact of social media. (Ayoub 300). All of these advancements mean it is possible for nations with an established acceptance for the LGBTQ+ community to spread these ideals of tolerance around the world. If liberal democracies can work to change mindsets, the pool of countries able to take in LGBTQ+ refugees will thrive.
Persecution and repression of the LGBTQ+ community is a significant problem, with asylum in friendly nations often being the only path to safety. LGBTQ+ refugees experience great risks, even after leaving their home countries, as persecution can continue in camps. While many countries have the ability to offer refuge, not all of those countries have legal protections in place to protect those who identify as LGBTQ+. For this reason, nations friendly to the queer community with legislation that ensures equal protection should prioritize granting asylum to these refugees. Even if such nations are more desirable places for asylum seekers, the only factor that ought to be considered for prioritization is the level of danger individuals are experiencing, not economic opportunity. As shown in the case of Germany training activists in Poland, it is possible for liberal nations to spread ideas of LGBTQ+ tolerance to countries experiencing a homophobic culture. Nations friendly to the LGBTQ+ community must attempt to promote tolerance in an international context; doing so would increase the pool of countries able to offer these refugees a safe home.
Works Cited:
Alessi, E.J., Kahn, S., Greenfield, B. et al. A Qualitative Exploration of the Integration Experiences of LGBTQ Refugees Who Fled from the Middle East, North Africa, and Central and South Asia to Austria and the Netherlands. Sex Res Soc Policy 17, 13–26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0364-7
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0364-7#citeas
Ayoub, Phillip M. “Contested Norms in New-Adopter States: International Determinants of LGBT Rights Legislation.” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 21, no. 2, SAGE Publications, 2015, pp. 293–322, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114543335.
Ciobanu, Claudia. “Foreign Ideology: Poland Populists Target LGBT Rights: Poland’s Governing Law and Justice Party Used to Get Political Mileage Out of Vilifying Refugees. Now It Has Its Sights on the LGBT Community. From Reporting Democracy.” Transitions Online, Transitions, 2019.
Fobear, Katherine. “I Thought We Had No Rights-Challenges in Listening, Storytelling, and Representation of LGBT Refugees.” Studies in Social Justice, vol. 9, no. 1, Centre for Studies in Social Justice, 2015, pp. 102–17, https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v9i1.1137.
Rosenthal , Max. “‘Am I Going to Make It until Tomorrow?’: A Gay Refugee’s Escape from Persecution.” HIAS, https://www.hias.org/blog/am-i-going-make-it-until-tomorrow-gay-refugees-escape-persecution.
Morico, Rachel. “Response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis in Germany, the United States, and Japan: Who Should Be Prioritized in Light of International Obligations?” Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol. 26, no. 1, Tulane University Law School, 2017, p. 189–.
Nguyen, AiVi. “LGBTQ Syrian Refugees Are Deemed a Priority.” The Case for Inclusion, 31 July 2020, https://www.bowditch.com/diversityinclusionma/2015/12/22/lgbtq-syrian-refugees-are-deemed-a-priority/.
Vitikainen, Annamari. “LGBT Rights and Refugees: a Case for Prioritizing LGBT Status in Refugee Admissions.” Ethics & Global Politics, vol. 13, no. 1, Routledge, 2020, pp. 64–78, https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2020.1735015.
