Once again, greetings from Kenya! As the east coast enjoys / curses the summer heat, I am sitting in seventy degree, sunny weather. Oh, the majesty of the southern hemisphere in June!
Starting on the 14th, I began to assume my day-to-day responsibilities at Mapendo International (for full details regarding the organization, please see the June 17th posting). Basically, I will be interviewing at-risk urban refugees to determine whether Mapendo can offer possible assistance. On Monday and Tuesday I was allowed to observe my colleagues to learn the dos and don’ts of the interviewing process. Like me, both of my co-workers have legal backgrounds. Prior to this week, I don’t believe I comprehended the full extent of skills I gained in the past year of studying the law. An avid reader, I took no joy in much of my courses’ required reading. I could easily have done without the nights of trying to determine the holdings for late 19th century cases.
Unbeknownst to me at the time, my professors were teaching me to clear away the excess material to locate the one essential principal of the opinion. As I sat in my colleagues’ offices, I realized these same skills were being utilized in their interviewing process. Each co-worker started with the simple request that the client tell their story of escape. My colleagues rarely spoke, but when they did it was to re-focus the narrative – an attempt to concentrate on the one defining criteria that each refugee’s story must fulfill in order to obtain aid.
Like the 19th century opinions, these interviews can sometimes be maddening. As Justice Scalia once noted, the “law pronounced … must be principled, rational, and based upon reasoned distinctions.” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 278 (2004). Yet, a refugee’s story is often devoid of any type of rationality or logic. A refugee sees a senseless murder as a senseless murder. Whereas my legal criteria demands I determine whether this killing justifies, to my current client, a well-founded fear of persecution based upon her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
I have found this dichotomy between my refugees’ emotional tales and the necessity for me to ask cold and calculating questions difficult. I understand that a cold evaluation ensures the interviewer’s judgment is not clouded by emotions, and that the law is utilized in a manner which Justice Scalia would approve. Yet, I hope with time I am able to find a proper balance between interviewing objectively while providing a warm and compassionate environment. After watching my colleagues, I gained many methods I would like to emulate, perhaps none more important than trying to foster a safe environment, if not a friendly one. In the end, I hope that my worth is determined by how I use the law, and not necessarily my sunny (or lack thereof) disposition.
Best,
Jerry