Recovering from statelessness: Resettled Bhutanese-Nepali and Karen refugees reflect on the lack of legal nationality

ABSTRACT

The very notion of international human rights relies on state governments to serve as the legal “duty bearers” for protecting rights, yet governments are often responsible for creating the conditions that necessitate mass displacement. For some refugees, the lack of legal nationality creates an added dimension of vulnerability that exacerbates suffering. In order to illustrate the human rights challenges inherent to statelessness, this article focuses on the lived experiences of 30 formerly stateless refugees who have been resettled to the United States. Qualitative research interviews with 15 Bhutanese-Nepalis and 15 members of the Karen ethnic minority (from Burma and Thailand), all currently resettled in the United States, provide insights into the everyday realities of stateless individuals. In both cases, statelessness represented a human rights violation in itself as well as a contributing factor for further abuses related to recognition and membership, denied education, and serious impediments to employment and livelihoods.

Notes

1. All names have been changed in order to protect the privacy of interview respondents, in accordance with the researchers' approved Internal Review Board (IRB) project proposal. When necessary, identifying markers (including the specific names of villages and refugee camps, as well as other personal details) have also been omitted.

2. Article 15(2) of the UDHR further stipulates that no one shall be “arbitrarily deprived of his nationality” (United Nations General Assembly 1948). Article 24(3) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contends that “every child has the right to acquire a nationality” (United Nations General Assembly 1966: 179). The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are key legal instruments for protecting stateless people around the world and reducing the lack of legal nationality (see United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1954 and 1961). Issues related to statelessness, such as access to birth registration and nondiscrimination in nationality laws, are addressed in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (UN Women 1979) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 1989).

3. The task of dividing Bhutan's population into ethnic categories is deeply problematic, although the Bhutanese government “aspires to a single cultural identity for the kingdom” (Hutt 2003: 4). Most accounts identify three main categories: the Ngalong in the west, the Sharchop in the east, and the Lhotshampa in the south. While much of Bhutan practices various styles of Buddhism, the southerners are mostly Hindus who speak the Nepali language. They are often referred to as “ethnic Nepalis” within Bhutan, although this categorization largely relates to histories of migration and does not fully recognize the complexities of ethnic subcategories and processes of identity politics (Hutt 2003: 4–6). Members of this ethnic group itself generally refer to themselves as “Nepalis” or as “Bhutanese Nepalis” (Hutt 2003: 6). For the purposes of this article, this group will be referred to as “Bhutanese-Nepalis,” since this was the term most commonly used by our interview respondents.

4. The Karen are the largest ethnic minority (sometimes referred to as “hill tribe”) living in the mountain range separating eastern Burma and northwestern Thailand. There are an estimated 4 to 6 million Karen living in Burma, with more than 400,000 Karen living in Thailand (Delang 2010: xi).

5. Family members were frequently placed into different categories, which later led to whole families facing displacement in order to protect one or more members. Interview respondents in our study regularly mentioned this categorization process as an example of government repression and cruelty. The seven categories were: F1 Genuine Bhutanese citizens; F2 Returned migrants; F3 Drop-out cases (such as people who were not available at the time of the census); F4 A non-national woman married to a Bhutanese man; F5 A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman; F6 Adoption cases (children who were legally adopted); and F7 Non-nationals, such as migrants and illegal settlers (Amnesty International, as cited in Hutt 2003: 154).

6. Burma became an independent state in 1948 following years of colonial rule by Britain. A 1962 coup d’état established a military-controlled socialist state; the military remained in power despite years of protests and rebellion from assorted dissidents. In 1989, the government officially changed the state's name from “Burma” to “Myanmar” (although the authors of this article continue to use the term “Burma” in solidarity with Burmese human rights advocates and the country's prodemocracy movement). Widespread public protests in the “Saffron Revolution” of 2007, led in part by Buddhist spiritual leaders, seems to have sparked a series of democratic reforms including the release of political prisoners such as Aung San Suu Kyi in 2010 and the opening of dialogue with countries such as the United States. (For country overview, see Central Intelligence Agency n.d.)

7. Thailand has not signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, but it is still bound by the principle of non-refoulement — a prohibition in customary international law on returning refugees to any country where they are likely to be persecuted or where their lives are at risk. By forcibly deporting asylum-seekers and refugees in this situation, Thailand breached international law (Human Rights Watch 2008).

8. Trained interpreters were available through local refugee resettlement organizations, although all respondents had some level of English proficiency. In one case, a respondent preferred to tell her story in her native language and have her adult child translate her account into English. The respondent did understand English, however, and would sometimes interrupt if she wanted to change the English translation. The majority of respondents did not use the assistance of an interpreter; their language proficiency was assessed by the researchers by gauging ease of discussions and by taking into account whether the respondent was working and/or going to school in English-speaking settings.

9. Researchers were attuned to the fact that discussing traumatic events, even those experienced many years ago, could cause harm to participants. Therefore, participants were told — and reminded throughout the interviews — that they could withdraw from the study and end the interview at any time. Although several respondents did express emotions while telling their stories, they insisted that they wanted to share their experiences and continue. Taking steps such as interviewing in comfortable and familiar settings, taking breaks, and allowing other people to be present for emotional support also helped to protect the respondents' well-being.

10. In these instances, we found that participants often corroborated previous interviews but also added additional details. While there is always the risk that the presence of additional participants will influence responses, we felt confident that data were reliable — particularly since the same human rights themes arose in interview after interview. We believed that the emotional benefits of having friends and family present outweighed any potential drawbacks.

11. Although common human rights themes emerged within this study's interviews with Bhutanese-Nepali and Karen refugees — and the existing literature highlights linkages between statelessness and human rights violations — it is important to recognize the limitations of this study when it comes to drawing broader conclusions about the impacts of statelessness worldwide. Every situation of statelessness has its own causes and unique circumstances; indeed, the groups central to this study faced similar challenges but within vastly different political situations. Acknowledging that stateless groups are diverse, the researchers warn against any attempts to craft a “one size fits all” solution to statelessness or to remedying its negative effects. Instead, this study provides data for better understanding the lived experiences of stateless individuals and the impacts of legal recognition.

12. Relatedly, many older respondents face language barriers and are afraid they will fail the US citizenship exam as a result. In many cases, they did not receive English lessons back home in preparation for resettlement. Now in the United States, they do not receive adequate ESL training because they are too busy working paid jobs or caring for children or because there is social pressure to save seats in overcrowded courses for younger or newer language students. For some who are not literate in their own languages or are older, learning English is very difficult and their progress is slow.

13. Civil liberties advocates filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2015 against the Utica City School District in central New York State for obstructing the public education of refugee youth and diverting them into weaker alternative programs. This lawsuit followed a joint review by the State Education Department and the State Attorney General, which found that New York school districts were prohibiting children from enrolling based on immigration status (Mueller 2015).