Katherine M. Becker
The principle of non-refoulement undergirds international asylum law. Non-refoulement stipulates that states should not return people to places where they will face particular forms of danger. This paper analyzes language as a nexus of refoulement, employing as a case study the experiences of Indigenous-language speakers seeking asylum in the United States.
This paper makes two principal contributions to the study of language and asylum law—one theoretical and one empirical. First, it introduces linguistic refoulement as a theoretical tool for understanding the intersections of language and asylum. Linguistic refoulement refers to situations where a lack of language-access protections cause states to return people to places where they face harm. The paper develops a taxonomy of five related linguistic bordering practices that produce linguistic refoulement: linguistic erasure, linguistic neglect, linguistic subordination, linguistic impatience, and linguistic isolation.
Second, this paper offers empirical evidence suggesting that the United States immigration system contravenes non-refoulement by failing to meet the language-access needs of asylum seekers who speak Mam, K’iche’, Nahuatl, and the hundreds of other Indigenous languages spoken in the Western Hemisphere. By subjecting Indigenous-language speakers seeking asylum to these overlapping linguistic bordering practices, the United States disproportionately refouls them back to situations involving threats, persecution, and torture.
This paper then offers a framework for developing strategies to protect people against linguistic refoulement, arguing that it is only by understanding the varied manifestations of linguistic refoulement that we can meaningfully protect linguistically vulnerable populations. The paper concludes by proposing policy changes, including a special immigrant visa for skilled interpreters and the abolition of immigration detention for linguistically vulnerable populations.