2. The authority or authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall issue or ensure that refugees obtain the documents or certificates which would normally be issued to foreign nationals by or through their national authorities. As co-chair of the Bipartisan Refugee Caucus, I joined my colleagues in calling on President Biden and his administration to increase admission targets for American refugees to historically low levels under President Trump. I am grateful to President Biden for starting to make progress in this regard, but there is still much to be done. We can once again lead the world in refugee resettlement and stand firm to our values of compassion by providing shelter and security to those around the world fleeing unfathomable damage and violence. This issue is personal to me and my family, and as long as I am in Congress, I will continue to advocate for the rights of refugees seeking protection in our country. Thank you to Refugees International for inviting me to share my story with all of you and for giving me the opportunity to discuss how I think we can improve our treatment of refugees through the leadership of the Congress. I wish you good luck in a courageous round table and I am once again grateful for the work you are doing to support and defend refugees. Thank you very much.
Now you notice that the same thing is happening in terms of fighting the pandemic. Governments are simply at peace with it. Some governments, as you can see, are riddled with conflict, but we are also working with nation-states, state and local governments, vaccine companies, intellectual property distributors, GAVI, CEPI, and all of this is an attempt to create a regime that can respond and respond to the recent refugee challenges. But the second point is that these entities do not function without someone directing them. What we`ve seen over the past four years is that when American leaders are not there, or worse, when the U.S. seems to be against the regime and makes it destructive, it leads to massive upheaval and mistrust. I think one of the keys in this regard is to rebuild a non-partisan appreciation of refugees and the contribution they have made to our societies. Yes. Thank you for asking that question, Eric. This may seem like a narrow matter of jurisprudence, but it is actually a big problem in terms of the legal protection that the United States must provide to refugees.
Basically, there are two approaches in legal circles. One is what I would call an outward-looking approach that you just described. This means considering refugee law as part of a broad global legal landscape. In fact, the words are the same, including words like political opinion or a particular social group. It is therefore all the more important that a particular social group can extend to people such as women or women who face gender-based violence or domestic violence, or to LGBTQ people who are not protected by the traditional categories of race, nationality or religion listed in the text. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol constitute the most detailed and widespread international codification of the rights of refugees. The 1951 Convention contains a definition of the term “refugee” and establishes the legal status of refugees, including their rights and obligations. However, the scope of that international agreement was limited to persons who became refugees as a result of events prior to 1 January 1951, including events which took place in Europe before that date. The 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees abolished the deadline of 1 January 1951 and made the 1951 Convention applicable to Europe without geographical restriction. As of 20 January 2020, there were 146 Parties to the Convention and 147 to the Protocol.
   Madagascar and St. Petersburg Kitts and Nevis are only parties to the Convention, while Cape Verde, the United States of America and Venezuela are only parties to the Protocol. Since ratifying the Protocol in 1968, the United States has assumed much of the commitments set out in the original 1951 Document (Articles 2 to 34) and Article 1, as amended in the Protocol, as the “supreme law of the land”.  3. States Parties shall give favourable consideration to equating the rights of all refugees to paid employment with those of nationals, in particular those who have entered their territory under recruitment programmes or immigration arrangements. The original convention was therefore narrowly defined, it had time limits. To be a refugee, a person must have been expelled because of events prior to 1 January 1951. It had geographical boundaries. States parties could, if they so wished, treat persons as refugees only if they had been displaced by events in Europe. But the basic concept of the convention was global and revolutionary. It was negotiated by delegates from 26 countries from all continents. And 16 years later, the 1967 Protocol removed these temporal and optional geographical restrictions.
Today`s convention is comprehensive, inclusive and world-oriented. 149 countries are now parties to the Convention or Protocol. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is currently working in 132 countries, some of which are not even parties to the Convention or Protocol, which demonstrate the global normative impact of the Convention. Their zero-tolerance policy suggested that no one has the right to cross the border unless their legal status has been assessed.