WELCOMING RITUAL

• Write Compelling Question, Supporting Questions, and Lesson Objectives on the board. Read it out loud with students.
• Ask: What do you know about the term ‘refugee’? Have students think-pair-share with a partner. Allow students to share out to the whole class. Write down what they came up with on the board. 
• Say: Refugees are defined in the following way: 1. outside of their country, 2. they fled because of danger (war, violence, persecution), 3. they would be in danger if they would be sent back, and 4. they are protected by international law (1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol).
• Ask: What do you know about the Vietnam War? 
  • Write these terms on the board as a preview into the lesson content: 
    • 1951 Refugee Convention
    • 1967 Protocol
    • Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975
    • Refugee Act of 1980
• Give students time to jot down their thoughts using the active learning strategy of visual note-taking. Have volunteers share their thoughts. Jot down on the whiteboard or poster paper what students shared.
• Note: If you are not familiar with the strategy of visual note-taking, please watch this short YouTube video Sketcho Frenzy: The Basics of Visual Note-taking (3:02 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY9KdRfNN9w. 

INTERACTION WITH FIRST SOURCE 

• Give a brief background of the Vietnam War and provide a chronology/overview of the refugee policies using the provided background info from Stanford Medicine (2019) and Hmong Refugee Experiences, scholar talk presentation by Dr. Ma Vang & Dr. Chia Vang (2023). Teachers should provide sources digitally and as physical handouts.
• Teacher will pose the lesson questions for students to add to their written/visual note-taking: 
  • What is the Vietnam War?
  • What were the major refugee policies?
  • How have Southeast Asian (Hmong) refugees been impacted by the US refugee and immigration laws?
• Background on Vietnam War (https://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnomed/hmong/introduction/history.html) 
  • In the 1960s, the war in Vietnam spread into Northeastern Laos, where many Hmong lived. Villagers were recruited by both the Pathet Lao communist regime under the leadership of Lo Faydang and the Central Intelligence Agency for the American cause under the leadership of General Vang Pao. Consequently, Hmong men and boys served as soldiers on both sides of the war. From the early 1960s to 1975, an estimated 18,000-20,000 men died as soldiers, while an estimated 50,000 civilians died directly from the fighting or indirectly from disrupted village and agricultural life (Robinson, 1998, 13).
  • The changing political climate within the United States (US) resulted in the withdrawal of its soldiers in 1975, leaving the Hmong to face persecution or death from the communist Pathet Lao. As people fled the war and resettled in new villages or foraged in the jungles, they were unable to raise crops to survive. From 1975 to 1997, approximately 138,000 Hmong escaped by crossing the hazardous Mekong River to refugee camps in Thailand, and an estimated 50,000-100,000 people died from fighting, diseases and starvation (Robinson, 1998, 107, 294). Many elders have horrific tales about their physical and psychological traumas, suffered during the war and during the refugee flight.
  • The Hmong stayed in refugee camps supported by The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Thai government and international non-government agencies, who provided security, shelter, food, water, medical services, and limited economic opportunities (Robinson, 1998). Camp officials encouraged people to resettle to other countries, as the camps were a temporary arrangement. Many people were reluctant to leave for a variety of reasons, including their not wanting to leave Asia, giving up on liberating Laos, splitting up their families, or beginning new lives in foreign countries where they did not know the language and the customs (Hamilton-Merritt, 1993). 
• Timeline/Chronology of Refugee Policies:
  • 1951: UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
  • 1967: Modified by the 1967 UN Protocol Relating to the Status of refugees
  • 1975: Indochina Migration & Refugee Assistance Act refugees fleeing Cambodia & Vietnam
  • 1976: Act extended to Laotians
  • 1977: Some states created ad hoc committees to help resettle Southeast Asian refugees. Wisconsin Indo-China Refugee Relief
  • 1980: The US Refugee Act established policies and procedures for refugee resettlement, including orientation to life in the US while abroad.
• Have students learn more about each refugee policy. The objective is for students to have a main understanding of basic historical context and effect of major refugee laws surrounding Southeast Asian refugees. 
• Briefly go over the 1951 UN Convention and 1967 UN Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees using the info provided below:
  • 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - After World War I and the displacement of millions of Europeans from their homes, governments set up international agreements to provide travel documents to these groups, the first recognized refugees. In the aftermath of World War II and millions more people were displaced, more guidelines and laws were established to protect the basic human rights of people fleeing conflict and persecution and to ensure their fair treatment. In 1950, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Refugee Agency, was established to help process displaced peoples and facilitate finding refuge for them. The laws and guidelines culminated in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter referred to as the Convention) as the centerpiece of refugee protection. The Convention established a legal definition for the refugee, which has remained the international standard for granting refugee status. 
  • The definition of a refugee outlined in Article 1 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and modified by the 1967 UN Protocol Relating to the Status of refugees is any person who: owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
  • The Convention is a status and a rights-based instrument that is guided by some fundamental principles including non-discrimination, non-penalization, and non-refoulement. Within the Convention and the UNHCR, UN solutions to refugee situations include: 
    • Voluntary repatriation (going back of one’s own free will) if and when possible;
    • Monetary assistance to countries housing refugees; or
    • Resettlement in a new country.
• Model Note-taking: Write down a basic definition, historical context, and its effects on refugees on a chart. Suggested chart for notetaking can be found in Handouts page 1  https://ucdavis.box.com/s/x61yo17ngljts6n9joicof9euzpocqtv.
• Project or provide copies of the “Refugee Policies” source below. As students are reading, instruct students to write down the basic definition, historical context, and its effects on refugees on a chart. Suggested chart for notetaking can be found in Handouts pages 2 and 3  https://ucdavis.box.com/s/x61yo17ngljts6n9joicof9euzpocqtv.
  • Refugee Policies (Source for Students provided by Vang & Vang, 2023 and Phúc Nguyễn, 2023)
    • Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975 (May 23, 1975) Following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, the US Congress passed the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975 to provide assistance to “...aliens who (A) because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion, fled from Cambodia or Vietnam; (B) cannot return there because of fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion; and (C) are in urgent need of assistance for the essentials of life.” Those fleeing Laos were added in 1976. This Act established the Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program to allow refugees to access public assistance (Vang & Vang, 2023).
    • The Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, while reclassifying the Indochinese as “refugees” only to the extent that money could be allocated to temporary holding camps in the US, it did not remove their “parole” status nor did it make any provisions for giving these refugees a path to permanent residence. Instead, it made specific provisions for resettlement in other countries, in accordance with the UNHCR, as well as provisions to repatriate refugees back to their homeland if they so desired. The focus of the law seemed not to integrate refugees into American society, but to provide these refugees with enough humanitarian assistance until they could be resettled or repatriated to other countries. 
    • Both US and UNHCR reports attest to a broader strategy of containing the influx of refugees within Southeast Asia. In a report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) to Congress on June 1st, 1976, the need for meeting the costs of “refugee evacuation” and “temporary care” were most emphasized, with the goal of resettling them in other countries or repatriating them (Comptroller General, 1976). Yet, after a year of refugee processing and an increasing awareness that these refugees had nowhere else to go, they shifted tactics. The GAO report a year later would emphasize the barrier imposed on Indochinese refugees through the 1975 law and parole status provisions, recommending that legislation be passed to give these refugees some pathway to permanent status (Comptroller General, 1977, 1979). Yet, at the same time, it highlighted that options for repatriation and resettlement outside the US should be prioritized first. This stands in line with the UNHCR strategy on Indochinese refugees outlined in 1979, which outlined a specific plan to first promote “voluntary repatriation and local resettlement, and in absence of these alternatives, resettlement outside the country of first asylum” (General Assembly, 1979). -Written by Joseph Loreto Phúc Nguyễn 
  • Note: Draw students' attention to the fact that originally the Status of Refugees, Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975 did not include Hmong refugees due to the fact that their participation was a secret. Hmong refugees were included in the following year in 1976.
• Refugee Act of 1980 
  • In the post WWII era, responses to refugee crises were ad hoc. With the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress set annual ceilings and established policies and procedures for refugee resettlement. This act established the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), appointed a Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, and formalized a process of federal aid for refugees for up to 36 months (Vang & Vang, 2023).
  • The US Refugee Act of 1980 retroactively granted permanent residence status to all refugees whose admission was not terminated by the Attorney General and who had been physically present in the US for at least one year. In essence, it ended the geographical and temporal restrictions listed in the 1962 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act and gave a majority of Vietnamese refugees permanent resident status. With the passage of the Ordinary Departure Program and UN commitment to refugee rights, the issue of balancing repatriation, resettlement into other countries, and resettlement into the US was resolved to the point that qualifying refugees in the US could be given permanent residence.
  • On the other hand, the Refugee Act had the practical effect of ending US responsibility over the massive boat people influx that was harrowing US society between 1975–1979. The law held an important provision that would prohibit the Attorney General from paroling an alien who is a refugee into the US unless there are compelling public interest reasons for doing so (Congressional Research Service, 2011). By providing a permanent process to screen and admit refugees systematically, the law prohibited the ability for refugees to be paroled on an ad hoc basis that was used for hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees during the evacuation of the Fall of Saigon and those rescued in the middle of the sea. Those who did not meet the “conditions” of the law and could not go through the “process” were automatically rejected. 
  • Thus, the Refugee Act of 1980 allowed the US to limit aid to a large number of Vietnamese refugees by treating them as “immigrants” rather than “refugees.” The legal status here is important. Following the repeal of the 1975 Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act by the 1980 law, neither “refugee” nor “immigrant” was given special benefits or financial assistance as provided to Vietnamese refugees before the law was passed. In addition, Congress was able to maintain the high numbers of admitting refugees fleeing communism while not going over its refugee quota by shunting many refugees into “immigrant” status, which had its own quota. Thus, the inclusion of “communist” refugees, including persons from Indochina, Cuba, Romania, and the Soviet Union into immigrant categories as well came at the exclusion of all others. In 1980, these “communist” refugees accounted for 93% of all persons given “refugee” status, not accounting for the portion of this percentage that were able to enter the US as “special immigrant” relatives (Congressional Research Service, 2011). Keeping official quota numbers low satisfied concerns about refugee admissions from the American public while simultaneously fulfilling requirements set by the United Nations to take its fair share of refugees. To top that, the narrative of saving refugees from communism was maintained as most of these refugees that were admitted under ODP were South Vietnamese nationals and ethnic Chinese who were persecuted by the communist regime, not including other marginalized groups affected by the wars and persecution around the world. -Written by Joseph Loreto Phúc Nguyễn 

SHARED LEARNING 

• Say: Resettlement education programs tried to allay the fears of refugees resettling in a new country, but Hmong refugees were not even known to lawmakers who crafted the US Resettlement Program and the 1980 Refugee Act. Teachers should provide sources digitally and as physical handouts.
• Discuss the topics of “Resettlement Program, Refugee Dispersal, and Hmong Migration to the United States” using the open sources provided below (Vang & Vang, 2023): 
  • US Refugee Resettlement Program
    • Say: Because Hmong involvement in the US military operations in Laos were kept secret from American officials and the public, State Department staff and lawmakers who crafted the US Refugee Resettlement Program and eventually the 1980 Refugee Act (which established the Office of Refugee Resettlement) did not know about Hmong refugees who were escaping from Laos. The Program initially allocated 55,000 spots for the evacuation of Vietnamese refugees. As Hmong refugees were arriving in Thailand to seek refuge, the world did not know from what they had escaped. Some of the refugees eventually filled the leftover 11,000 of the 55,000 spots that were not filled by Vietnamese refugees, only after Lionel Rosenblatt, a State Department staff charged with resettlement, learned about the Hmong plight. 
    • Show the news footage details some of this story “Former U.S. refugee coordinator talks about creative ways to disguise the Hmong in resettlement documents” (2:51 minutes) https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/kare11-sunrise/lionel-rosenblatt-hmong-resettlement-laos-center-studies/89-2df58cc1-048c-4e92-81f0-c99e783e4888. 
    •  Have students add to their visual note-taking of new things they learned or new wonderings about the Vietnam War and refugee policies. 
  • Refugee Dispersal 
    • Say: The Indochina Migration and Refugee Act of 1975 and the Refugee Act of 1980 created processes for refugees to resettle in the United States. The United States resettled approximately one million Southeast Asian refugees, including Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, Mien, Khmu, between 1975 and 2000. Despite the passage of legislation to resettle refugees, more Americans opposed resettlement at 54 percent than those who were in favor at 36 percent, according to a 1975 Gallup poll. An outcome of this lack of public support was resettlement planners’ aim to minimize the impact of refugee resettlement. US refugee resettlement policy enacted a process of dispersed resettlement to share the impact across different states. Planners also sought to minimize the financial burden by fast-tracking refugee self-sufficiency and to facilitate cultural assimilation. As a result, refugee extended families were resettled into different states through their resettlement centers in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and California. 
  • Chronology of Hmong Migration to the US 
    • Say: Since 1975, Hmong refugees represent about 10% of all Indochinese/Southeast Asian refugees resettled to the US. 
    • Timeline:
      • 1975: Indochina Migration & Refugee Assistance Act refugees fleeing Cambodia & Vietnam
      • 1976: Act extended to Laotians
      • 1977: Some states created ad hoc committees to help resettle Southeast Asian refugees. Wisconsin Indo-China Refugee Relief
      • 1980: The US Refugee Act established policies and procedures for refugee resettlement, including orientation to life in the US while abroad.
      • 1992: United Nations–sponsored Ban Vinai refugee camp in Thailand closed
      • 1995: Chiag Kham camp closed, halting resettlement of all Hmong refugees
      • 2003: US State Department announced will resettle Hmong refugees living in Wat Tham Krabok (Thailand)
      • 2004: Several US delegations visited Wat Tham Krabok to assess the health conditions of refugees in early 2004; the first families arrived that summer
      • 2006: Wat Tham Krabok “camp” officially closed
  • Settlement Patterns 

    • Say: Although more than 40,000 Hmong had been resettled to the US by 1980, the 1980 Census counted only a little more than 5000 Hmong. Refugee policies that dispersed Hmong all over the country made it difficult to count the numbers because Census outreach did not include Hmong refugees. While many remained in those areas, others practiced chain migration by moving to other areas with larger Hmong populations. California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin continue to have the largest Hmong populations, respectively. 

      Year - Total

      1980 - 5,000

      1990 - 94,439

      2000 - 186, 310

      2010 - 260, 073

      2020 - 305,525

  • Secondary Migration 
    • Say: Secondary migration is a process where refugees move after their initial resettlement to join family and build community. The refugee resettlement method of dispersal may have addressed policy makers’ concerns about the burden of developing concentrated refugee communities in certain states, but it had the opposite effect for refugees who were separated from their extended families and friends. Hmong refugees found themselves to be the only or one of a few families resettled in a city. They experienced isolation and loneliness during the first few months or years after arrival in the United States. But once they learned of families who were resettled in other states, they moved again to join family. Hmong families chose to move to states with good climates for farming, job opportunities, and generous public and private social services to support their growing families and community building efforts. This form of secondary migration saw growing concentrations in the states of California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Later arrivals after the secondary migration chose to resettle in these new concentrations. As an example, Merced and Fresno, California were sites of secondary migration. Some families surveyed Merced as a potential location to build a large Hmong community, and while it was not the destination of initial resettlement, the city and county presented an opportunity for families to form their own version of self-sufficiency through farming. Multiple families bid farewell to their church sponsors and moved to Merced. Secondary migration showed that the refugee resettlement practice of dispersal failed, and Hmong refugees enacted agency in determining where they would live–where they can build community and seek opportunities for their families. 
• While the United States saw the highest number of Hmong refugee resettlement, refugees also resettled in France, Australia, Argentina, Canada, Germany, and French Guiana. Smaller populations of Hmong continue to live in these countries and maintain connections with their families in the United States, Thailand, or Laos. A segment of the Hmong refugee population did not resettle in a third country, instead, they integrated into Thai society and live in predominantly Hmong villages in northern Thailand near Chiang Mai.
• Allow students the space to share stories about where their family members settled and if they engaged in secondary migration.

COMMUNITY COLLABORATION

• Say: Now that we have learned an overview of the refugee policies and resettlement programs, we will examine closely the resettlement of Hmong refugees in the United States, focusing on the following issues through a Jigsaw Reading activity using an online archive resource “The Hmong Resettlement Study” (a report prepared by the University of Minnesota, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, through its Southeast Asian Refugee Studies Project). 
  • What has been the resettlement experience of the Hmong?
  • What resettlement efforts and economic strategies have provided effective results for the Hmong?
  • How might current strategies be changed to result in more effective resettlement and long-term adjustment of the Hmong?
• Jigsaw Reading Preparation: Assign each student to a group. Have students first read their assigned materials and then share key findings with their same group of what they learned - this allows them to be the experts of their group. The idea is that in each group each person will have read a different source and can then share what they learned with a different group. Once all group members share, they talk about what they learned by putting all their knowledge together (like a jigsaw).  
•  Assign students into a section of “The Hmong Resettlement Study” (https://oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb5q2nb3gm&brand=oac4&doc.view=entire_text) groups below and provide text materials for each group. See the recommended groups and assigned sections below:

Groups / Sources

Group 1: Chapter I General Context

Group 2: Chapter II Local Hmong Population

Group 3: Chapter III Resettlement Issues

Group 4: Chapter IV Uniqueness of the Community: Summary

Group 5: Chapter V The Future of the Hmong in the Twin Cities

• Once students have shared in their same groups and different groups, students should have notes about each group on their notetaker.

• Then, have a whole class discussion on the issues: What has been the resettlement experience of the Hmong? What resettlement efforts and economic strategies have provided effective results for the Hmong? How might current strategies be changed to result in more effective resettlement and long-term adjustment of the Hmong?

   

CULTURAL PRODUCTION

• After gaining background knowledge of refugee policies, resettlement programs, and settlement patterns, the class will engage in the Problem of Praxis (POP) Activity, which is an adaptation of Philosophy for Children developed by Dr. Lipman and Dr. Jackson.
  • Background Knowledge of Problem of Praxis for Teachers - This Problem of Praxis ​protocol introduces students to a variety of discussion-based inquiry that are based on the theoretical foundations of Philosophy of Children (Jackson, 2001). This can be used with students at any grade level and within any discipline. It seeks to develop students’ ability to think for themselves and to learn to use that ability in responsible, caring ways. It ​is ​also ​an ​active learning ​strategy creating intellectually safe communities where philosophical inquiry can flourish. Participants ​are ​asked ​to ​actively ​gather information from a text, book, article, etc. and begin to ask qualitatively different sorts of questions; they persist in seeking to scratch beneath the surface of a text or lesson, or personal situation. 
  • Developing a Community of Inquiry - Discussion-based inquiry is not about having a particular answer in mind beforehand. It begins by developing a context within which dialogue and inquiry unfold. Certainly, classrooms must be physically safe places. For dialogue and inquiry to occur they must be emotionally and intellectually safe as well. An important detail relevant to intellectual safety is proper acknowledgment of the diversity of views that emerge in the course of various inquiries. The goal is not to persuade anyone to any particular answer, but rather for everyone to reach a deeper understanding of the complexity of the issues involved and a greater ability to navigate among these complexities. 
  • The source of the P4C Inquiry: Whenever possible, the inquiry arises out of the questions and interests of the community, begins where the community is in its understanding, and moves in directions that the community indicates. There are a wide variety of possible triggers, occasions, and topics for inquiry. Plain Vanilla is one strategy or ‘how to’  for finding a trigger and then giving shape to an inquiry.
• Follow these Steps to facilitate a Problem of Praxis:
  • Step 1. Read - A paragraph or two, an episode, a chapter, or a whole story. In the primary grades, the teacher may do the reading, or she may write the story on chart paper for everyone to read together. Alternatively, students could look at paintings, especially those by the students themselves; watch a video; read a poem; listen to a piece of music; or select a topic from a 'wonder box' into which children have placed things they wonder about. 
  • Step 2. Question - Ask the students for questions or comments they have about the story. Write them down on chart paper with the child's name next to their comment. For older students, you may choose to use a shared Google document or sheet for them to type out their questions.
  • Step 3. Vote - As a class, the community votes for the question or comment they would like to inquire into first. Note this beside the question. Write “NQP” beside the question with the next highest number of votes. 
  • Step 4. Dialogue/Inquiry - Inquire into the question selected. If the students lose energy for the question selected, the group can then vote to focus on the question marked NQP. The discussion ideally takes place as a whole class, but can be modified for group or partner discussion. Teachers can also choose to make modifications for verbal discussion by hosting an equivalent discussion on an online platform.
  • Step 5. Evaluate - Use the criteria suggested in this chapter, some subset thereof, or other criteria you select to reflect on the session.
  • As an alternative to a verbal discussion, teachers can facilitate an online discussion forum using applications such as Padlet or equivalent. 

CONCLUSIVE DIALOGUE

• Reflecting on the Inquiry - Finally, it is important that the inquiry community reflect on how well it has done on any given day. The following criteria are suggested, which the teacher can present to the group prior to beginning the inquiry cycle and again at the end of each session. The criteria fall into two categories, those dealing with how we did as a community and those dealing with the inquiry itself.
  • How did we do as a community? 
    • Listening - Was I listening to others? Were others listening to me? 
    • Participation - Did most people participate rather than just a few who dominated? 
    • Safety - Was it a safe environment?  
  • How was our inquiry? 
    • Focus - Did we maintain a focus? 
    • Depth - Did our discussions scratch beneath the surface, open up the topic, or otherwise make some progress? 
    • Understanding - Did I increase my understanding of the topic? 
    • Thinking - Did I challenge my own thinking or work hard at it? 
    • Interest - Was it interesting? 
• Points to Consider: At some point it is important for the group to discuss more fully what each criterion means. What, for example, counts as participation? Does one need to speak in order to participate? What does it mean to scratch beneath the surface? At an appropriate time, the teacher can introduce the notion of three types of progress and the use of the various tools as indicators of scratching or its absence.
• Note. The lesson on “Religious Sponsorship” is recommended as a follow up to this lesson.