THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, October 11, 1994 TAG: 9410110012
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 51 lines
Led by Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., the women's issues caucus has decided to implement the call by the recent Cairo conference on world population issues to raise women's status by rewriting U.S. immigration law to allow for something called ``gender asylum.'' Women who fear or suffer from crime or barbarous customs in their homeland would be entitled to safe haven in the United States. Well-intentioned as it may be, the concept is unworkable and, in some ways, just plain silly.
The caucus has drafted a ``concept paper'' proposing that females be ``conclusively'' entitled to asylum by showing either fear or suffering from rape, sexual abuse, genital mutilation, bride burning, forced marriage, restricted employment and educational opportunities, and ``humiliating'' dress codes and marriage customs.
Unfortunately, it is hard to think of a woman anywhere in the world who could not claim to fall into one of these categories. The patent unfairness of making a male would-be refugee go through the rigorous process of proving he is a victim of political oppression while waving through a woman who claims she must wear ``humiliating'' clothing should be obvious.
Official U.S. policy is to grant asylum to those persecuted, or who have a well-founded fear of persecution, on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in what the immigration authorities calls a ``particular group.'' Many asylum seekers are turned away because their primary motivation appears economic rather than political.
Of course, the main purpose of this proposed legislation is to imprint an ill-defined feminist theory on the world. It is also ironic that American liberals are branding some Third World customs as unacceptable, given that right here at home many of the same people are seeking to impose a ``multicultural'' agenda on American social policy that encourages cultural ``diversity.''
The most insidious effect of granting ``gender asylum,'' however, is that it differentiates women's rights from human rights. Most of the nations that engage in the practices that Schroeder et al. rightly deplore lack the most basic democratic protections for all citizens, no matter what their sex.
Seeking to elevate the status of women is a laudable policy goal, simply because it is right. The best way for the United States to achieve that, however, is to encourage nations around the world to treat all their citizens with dignity and respect, not just some of them. by CNB