Abstract

Excerpted From: Joseph M. Frengel II, The Haitian Revolution, Anti-Haitianism, and the Evolution of Exclusionary Immigration Policy in the United States, 20 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review 483 (2025) (193 Footnotes) (Full Document Requested)

In 1804, the Haitian Revolution changed the course of history. By overthrowing the French, Haiti became the first nation to abolish slavery, the first black republic, and the second independent nation in the western hemisphere after the United States. This was the downfall of the French empire, and in the following years European nations began to ban the slave trade. Haiti also directly aided other liberation efforts in Latin America. Having threatened the systems of slavery and colonization to such a large extent, there were actions taken against Haiti, to punish them and to reduce their influence. This included a refusal to acknowledge their sovereignty and embargos, ultimately leading to forced payment to France for their independence. This backlash that Haiti received is a major contributing factor in the nation's poverty. Furthermore, the United States has continued to play a role in Haiti's destabilization. The poverty and instability have led to waves of Haitian migration, which have consistently, over the past 50 years, been met with a commitment to exclusion not seen by any other migrant nationality during this time.

There have been unique measures taken to exclude Haitians which implicate international human rights law. This commitment to exclusion is still rooted in the backlash to the Haitian Revolution, and it is rooted in the contempt for Haiti having dared to threaten the power structure. This paper will go through the history of the United States' immigration policy as it relates to Haitian migrants. It will start with the re-emergence of immigration detention, with Haitians being at the center of this re-emergence. It will discuss the immigration and repatriation of the 80s and 90s, specifically targeting Haitians, as well as the use of Guantanamo Bay for detention. It will also explain how the modern-day policies of denial of asylum claims at the border are a direct result of a surge of Haitian migrants. The pattern demonstrated is that each new policy of migrant exclusion in American immigration law is formed in response to an influx of Haitian asylum seekers, and the exclusionary policy is applied initially to Haitians before being applied more broadly. There will be discussion of how all of these policies violate international law. There will also be a discussion of political rhetoric and how that demonstrates continued anti-Haitian sentiment within the United States government that traces back to the Haitian Revolution.

This paper will show how anti-Haitian immigration policy has been a continuance of the retaliation against Haiti for the Haitian Revolution. There has been discussion about the backlash to the Haitian Revolution and how that has contributed to the poverty in Haiti. There is also literature about the unique ways in which Haitians have been mistreated in the United States immigration system. In Refugees, Racism, and Reparations: A critique of the United States' Haitian Immigration Policy, Malissia Lennox discusses the history of the United States' relationship with Haiti, the way United States immigration policy has targeted Haitians, the anti-black racism embedded in the United States immigration system, and argues for policies related to Haitian immigration that acknowledge the United States' role in Haiti's destabilization. Raymond Audain's Not Yet Forgiven Haiti for Being Black: Haiti's TPS, LDF and the Protean Struggle for Racial Justice, connects Trump's attack on Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) for Haiti to the larger history of the anti-black discrimination against Haiti dating back to the Haitian Revolution, but stops short of positioning the anti-Haitian discrimination in immigration as continued direct backlash to the Haitian Revolution. My work expands upon Lennox's because that article was written in 1993 and mine will discuss the ways in which immigration policy continues to target Haitians. Furthermore, my work will expand upon Lennox's by making the case that the anti-Haitian immigration policy is the result of backlash for the Haitian Revolution. I will expand upon Audain's work by making the direct connection between the discrimination against Haitians in modern immigration policy and the Haitian Revolution as well as continuing the discussion of the discrimination into the Biden Administration and the impending second Trump Administration. This paper will apply the work of E. Tendayi Achiume, who has produced scholarship on the European nations' responsibility in migration due to their role in the destabilization of the countries that people are migrating from. I will argue that, for Haitians specifically, given the United States' role in the destabilization of the country that they have a role to adopt more migrant-friendly policies as it pertains to Haitians. This paper builds upon the existing literature by making the direct connection that the mistreatment of Haitians in the United States immigration system is not only a result of the backlash to the Haitian Revolution, but also continued backlash itself.

Ultimately, this paper will prove that the United States has specifically targeted Haitian migrants in violation of their rights under international law. They have had their rights violated in ways that no other migrant group has, and waves of Haitian migration time and time again lead the United States to push the boundaries of the ways in which they exclude and punish migrants. This is a direct continuance of the backlash against Haiti for the Haitian revolution. There is still a sentiment in the United States that Haiti did something they should not have done in overthrowing their enslavers. There is also a fear of a black majority, of African spirituality, and of the revolutionary spirit of Haitians, that are at play in the United States' determination to exclude Haitians. This paper makes a point that is missing in international law and immigration law scholarship that Haitian migration has consistently over decades been the catalyst for the United States' exclusionary immigration policies which disregard international law. A pattern will be demonstrated where waves of Haitian migration led to new methods of exclusion and discrimination in immigration law, which are applied to Haitians first before being applied more broadly. This furthers the discussion of the racialization of immigration policy in the United States by demonstrating that there is anti-blackness at the root of anti-immigrant policy and that Haitians are at the center of it. There is a racial othering of Haitians that is intertwined with a religious othering, and it has to do both with a white fear of changing racial demographics in the United States, but also a memory of the defeat to white supremacy that Haiti delivered, for which there is continued resentment and fear. This paper also speaks to the shortcomings of international human rights law in the area of refugee protection, as it was developed to protect European refugees after World War II. International refugee law has failed to protect black and brown refugees, and Haitians have been at the center of America's denial of refugee rights. The paper will offer solutions of how United States policy can be more migrant friendly and how it can begin to atone for past wrongdoings against Haiti.

[. . .]

The United States' course of action should be to adopt a more migrant-friendly immigration policy and to take a reparations-based foreign policy approach pertaining to Haiti. It is often argued by proponents of anti-immigrant policy in the United States that the United States takes a disproportionately large amount of the burden of migration. Not only does this point violate the spirit of international solidarity, but it is also untrue. The United States is not even in the top ten nations in terms of number of refugees hosted, and the majority of refugees move to neighboring countries, which tend to be countries that have far fewer resources than the United States. Furthermore, another way that the United States justifies its exclusion of immigrants is by arguing that they have no obligation to receive “economic migrants.” In fact, this argument was foundational to establishing discriminatory policy towards Haitian asylum seekers, as the government classified them as economic migrants rather than refugees, although they were claiming asylum and did not receive a hearing on the claims merits.

However, the United States violates their international law obligations and their own domestic law through these blanket denials where they do not screen for credible fear of persecution. Furthermore, political persecution in Haiti throughout the time periods discussed in this paper is well documented. In Migration as Decolonization, E. Tendayi Achiume critiques this claimed right to exclude migrants. She argues “that historical and continuing Third World subjection to and exploitation by the First World meets the requisite threshold of coercion and coercively undergirded processes necessary to render Third World peoples part of a shared demos with their First World counterparts, holding an equal stake in its direction,” so the “First World” does not have a right to exclude migrants from the nations that it colonized. She also asserts that this assertion of self-determination through migration is decolonization. Applying this theory, the United States' continued neocolonial activities in Haiti which contribute to its political and economic instability mean that it does not have a right to exclude Haitian migrants. In “Haiti as Empire's Laboratory,” Jemima Pierre demonstrates the United States' continued infringement upon Haiti's sovereignty. She demonstrates that over the past two decades Haiti has served as a “testing ground” for the United States' neocolonial policies. As was demonstrated in Section II of this paper, the United States has a long history of exploiting Haiti economically and infringing on its sovereignty politically. Therefore, not only does the United States not have a right to exclude Haitians, but it also owes reparations to Haiti.

In Refugees, Racism, and Reparations: A Critique of the United States' Haitian Immigration Policy, Malissia Lennox argued that “[t]he United States has meddled in Haitian affairs since the advent of Africanslavery. To now discriminate against them is not only foolish but deadly,” and that the United States should grant asylum to Haitians who have “legitimate claims of persecution.” This idea should be expended upon to include an assertion that the asylum definition needs to be expanded to include all forms of persecution, and not just persecution “on account of a protected ground.” It can be difficult for Haitians to meet the narrow requirement of persecution on account of a protected ground, and this would afford more Haitians protection in the United States. The use of parole to admit Haitians should also be expanded, the interdiction and repatriation practice should be stopped, and the border should no longer be closed to asylum seekers. Furthermore, there should be a path to citizenship for TPS holders. All of these more friendly policies towards Haitian immigrants can help the United States to atone for its history of contributing to the political and economic destabilization of Haiti. Not only will it offer safety to Haitian refugees, but it will also contribute to the development of Haiti. Remittances are an important source of economic growth for Haiti. This adoption of a more favorable immigration policy towards Haitians can be one portion of the larger responsibility of the United States to atone for the harm that it has done to Haiti.

Joseph M. Frengel II, J.D. Candidate, May 2025, University of Maryland School of Law; B.A. in Africology and African American Studies, Temple University, 2022.