As other chapters of this book illustrate, forced migration is a worldwide phenomenon. It is played out in source countries, receiving countries, and third countries in all the inhabited regions of the planet. The differing policies of the major receiving countries reflect a mixture of historical, cultural, political, ethnic, linguistic, economic and other variables that are not always easy to identify. Like the other chapters of this book, this chapter on the USA's experience will consider the implications of one jurisdiction's refugee and asylum practices for the principle of the rule of law.

Part one provides core background information on US refugee and asylum law and policy. It summarizes the history of the US refugee protection system, the current legislative framework, the asylum adjudication structure, the basic substantive criteria for refugee or asylum status, and related domestic and international mechanisms for providing humanitarian protection in the USA.

Part two, the heart of the chapter, explores the compatibility of US refugee and asylum practices with the principle of the rule of law. After an introductory explanation of the way in which the term rule of law is being used here, that section will examine five settings in which US refugee and asylum practices raise significant rule of law concerns. They include perceived abuses of the asylum system by applicants, but they also include the array of legal and practical barriers to accessing the asylum system, inadequate scrutiny by particular adjudicators, threats to the adjudicators' decisional independence, and US deviations from its international legal obligations.