Search

Begin New Search Topic Humanitarian Crisis Political Geography North America

21. Point of No Return: The Fear and Criminalization of Central American Refugees

Author:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the challenges faced by Central American migrants who returned home after failing to gain asylum or other international protection in the United States or Mexico. Cristosal interviewed individuals who fled from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras under threats of violence and persecution and had been deported back to their country of origin to determine why they fled their homelands, why they could not secure asylum, and on their situations post-return. In the context of mass migration from these countries, the study used in- depth interviews to understand the different ways in which people experienced the violence and fear that forced them to flee and how their responses upon “voluntary return” or deportation back to their country of origin were shaped by that same violence. While there are many studies on the flight of persons from the Northern Triangle of Central America (NTCA), little is known about the experience of refugees who cannot secure protection in another country and are deported to their home country, from which they originally fled. What are the psychosocial, security, and human rights consequences for people who migrated out of fear for their lives and were then forced to return to the situation that forced them to flee?
Topic:
Migration, Regional Cooperation, Immigration, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, North America, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

22. Another Story: What Public Opinion Data Tell Us About Refugee and Humanitarian Policy

Author:
Brad Blitz
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Abstract:
The global reaction to US President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”[1] of January 27, 2017, revealed great public sympathy for the fate of refugees and the principle of refugee protection. In the case of Europe, such sympathy has, however, been dismissed by politicians who have read concerns regarding security and integration as reason for introducing restrictive policies on asylum and humanitarian assistance. These policies are at odds with public sentiment. Drawing upon public opinion surveys conducted by Amnesty International, the European Social Survey (ESS), and Pew Global Attitudes Survey across the European Union and neighboring states, this article records a marked divide between public attitudes towards the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and official policies regarding asylum and humanitarian assistance, and seeks to understand why this is the case. The article suggests that post-9/11 there has been a reconfiguration of refugee policy and a reconnecting of humanitarian and security interests which has enabled a discourse antithetical to the universal right to asylum. It offers five possible explanations for this trend: i) fears over cultural antagonism in host countries; ii) the conflation of refugees and immigrants, both those deemed economically advantageous as well as those labelled as “illegal”; iii) dominance of human capital thinking; iv) foreign policy justification; and v) the normalization of border controls. The main conclusion is that in a post-post-Cold War era characterized in part by the reconnecting of security and humanitarian policy, European governments have developed restrictive policies despite public sympathy. Support for the admission of refugees is not, however, unqualified, and most states and European populations prefer skilled populations that can be easily assimilated. In order to achieve greater protection and more open policies, this article recommends human rights actors work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its partners to challenge the above discourse through media campaigns and grassroots messaging. Further recommendations include:
Topic:
Security, Immigration, Border Control, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

23. US Immigration Policy and the Case for Family Unity

Author:
Zoya Gubernskaya and Joanna Dreby
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
As the Trump administration contemplates immigration reform, it is important to better understand what works and what does not in the current system. This paper reviews and critically evaluates the principle of family unity, a hallmark of US immigration policy over the past 50 years and the most important mechanism for immigration to the United States. Since 1965, the United States has been admitting a relatively high proportion of family-based migrants and allowing for the immigration of a broader range of family members. However, restrictive annual quotas have resulted in a long line of prospective immigrants waiting outside of the United States or within the United States, but without status. Further policy changes have led to an increasing number of undocumented migrants and mixed-status families in the United States. Several policies and practices contribute to prolonged periods of family separation by restricting travel and effectively locking in a large number of people either inside or outside of the United States. On top of that, increasingly aggressive enforcement practices undermine family unity of a large number of undocumented and mixed-status families. Deportations — and even a fear of deportation — cause severe psychological distress and often leave US-born children of undocumented parents without economic and social support. A recent comprehensive report concluded that immigration has overall positive impact on the US economy, suggesting that a predominantly family-based migration system carries net economic benefits. Immigrants rely on family networks for employment, housing, transportation, informal financial services, schooling, childcare, and old age care. In the US context where there is nearly no federal support for immigrants’ integration and limited welfare policies, family unity is critical for promoting immigrant integration, social and economic well-being, and intergenerational mobility. Given the benefits of family unity in the US immigrant context and the significant negative consequences of family separation, the United States would do well to make a number of changes to current policy and practice that reaffirm its commitment to family unity. Reducing wait times for family reunification with spouses and children of lawful permanent residents, allowing prospective family-based migrants to visit their relatives in the United States while their applications are being processed, and providing relief from deportation and a path to legalization to parents and spouses of US citizens should be prioritized. The cost to implement these measures would likely be minor compared to current and projected spending on immigration enforcement and it would be more than offset by the improved health and well-being of American families.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugees, Family, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

24. Institutionalizing Gender in Emergencies: Case study of Dominican Republic

Author:
Zobeyda Cepeda and Eliza Hilton
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
This case study describes implementation of the project Institutionalizing Gender in Emergencies: Bridging Policy and Practice.
Topic:
Gender Issues, Governance, Bureaucracy, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Caribbean, Dominican Republic, and North America

25. A Medium- and Long-Term Plan to Address the Central American Refugee Situation

Author:
Dan Restrepo and Silva Mathema
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
It is impossible to understand the flow of refugees emanating from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—collectively, known as the Northern Triangle of Central America—without understanding the security and economic conditions in each of the three countries. Despite important differences, the three Northern Triangle countries are among the poorest in the Americas and the most violent in the world. Based on statistics from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, or UNODC, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were three of the five most dangerous countries in the world in 2013—the last year for which U.N. statistics are available. That year, Honduras had the world’s highest per capita homicide rate, at 90.4 homicides per 100,000 people; El Salvador ranked fourth, with a rate of 41.2 homicides per 100,000 people; and Guatemala was fifth, with a rate of 39.9 homicides per 100,000 people. Since then, the situation in El Salvador has dramatically worsened following the 2014 breakdown of a 2012 truce between two of its largest and most powerful street gangs: MS-13 and Barrio 18. In 2015, El Salvador became the most dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere, with a homicide rate of 108.5 per 100,000. This made it 24 times more dangerous than the United States, which had a homicide rate of 4.5 per 100,000 in 2014. The violence in some of these countries’ cities is even worse. For example, San Salvador, the capital city of El Salvador, averaged one murder every hour in August 2015—the highest number of murders since the end of the country’s horrific civil war in 1992.5 The 2015 homicide rates in both Honduras and Guatemala improved to 62.5 and 29.2 homicides per 100,000 people, respectively.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugee Crisis, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Central America, North America, Honduras, El Salvador, and United States of America

26. A Short-Term Plan to Address the Central American Refugee Situation

Author:
Philip E. Wolgin
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Over the past half-decade, rising violence and structural poverty in the Northern Triangle region of Central America—which encompasses El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala—have pushed thousands of children and families to flee for safety. These three countries are some of the most dangerous on the planet, with high rates of homicide and specifically femicide—the killing of women and girls. Violence, corruption, and extortion play a big part in everyday life. Since 2014, more than 120,000 children and another 120,000 people in family units from this region have arrived in the United States seeking protection. The flow of these asylum seekers peaked in fiscal year 2014 before dipping, perhaps temporarily, in FY 2015. This drop occurred not because conditions improved in the region but because of a sustained effort by the U.S. government—with the help of Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries—to stop people from making the dangerous journey or to intercept them on the way to the United States. This year, in FY 2016, the numbers of children and families arriving in the United States have begun to rise again as conditions in the region continue to deteriorate. This report lays out short-term recommendations for ensuring that all asylum seekers who reach the United States receive a full and fair shot at protection. The recommendations are structured to follow the process that children and families go through when seeking protection: arrival in the United States, custody determinations and detention, and proceedings in the immigration courts.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugee Crisis, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Central America, North America, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and United States of America

27. Refugee Integration in the United States

Author:
David Dyssegaard and Silva Mathema
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Refugees are admitted to the United States for humanitarian reasons: They face well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries and seek a safe haven here. But they also contribute to the American economy, bringing vitality to areas with declining populations, contributing to the growth of areas whose populations are already increasing, and expanding the labor force as they seek and find work to make better lives for themselves and their children. Around 3 million refugees have been admitted to the United States. This report focuses on four groups—Somali, Burmese,* Hmong, and Bosnian refugees—that are identifiable in U.S. Bureau of the Census data and that together constitute about 500,000 U.S. residents. Refugees come from a wide range of backgrounds and regions, so no single group can be considered typical. The groups examined here, however, show that there are some broad trends among them, as well as some distinctions. Other studies have illustrated that refugees quickly become self-sufficient in the United States, a central goal of federal resettlement policy. What this report examines is how these groups fare in the long run, finding that over time, refugees integrate well into their new communities. After being in the United States for 10 years, refugees are in many regards similar to their U.S.-born neighbors, with similar rates of labor force participation and business ownership. The large majority have learned to speak English after being in the country for 10 years and have become naturalized U.S. citizens after being in the country for 20 years. The following are among the report’s major findings, which are based on an analysis of 2014 American Community Survey, or ACS, 5-year data for Somali, Burmese, Hmong, and Bosnian refugees:
Topic:
Refugee Crisis, Assimilation, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

28. The Central American Humanitarian Crisis and US Policy Responses

Author:
Kevin Appleby, Leonir Chiarello, and Donald Kerwin
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), a nonpartisan think tank/educational institute focusing on the study of international migration, and the Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN), a not-for-profit organization focusing on protection and development programs for migrants, traveled to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico from August 15 to 22 to visit migrant shelters operated by the religious Congregation of the Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo, Scalabrinians. The delegation toured migrant detention and return facilities, met with public officials and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and assessed how the US-Mexico policies of deterrence and interdiction have impacted the region and particularly those seeking to flee the record levels of violence in the Northern Triangle states of Central America.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Migration, Regional Cooperation, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, North America, Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador

29. Syrian Immigrants in the United States

Author:
David Dyssegaard Kallick, Cyierra Roldan, and Silva Mathema
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Syrian immigrants and refugees have frequently been in the news over the past year, and not always in a positive light. President-elect Donald Trump lashed out against Syrians coming to the United States during his campaign, promising a ban on immigration from countries “compromised by terrorism,” calling for “extreme vetting” of immigrants from Muslim and Arab nations, and saying of people already granted refugee status who fled Syria, “If I win, they’re going back.”1 Considering this negative rhetoric, it may come as a surprise to some that immigrants from Syria who live in the United States are in fact doing very well. They are learning English, getting good jobs, owning homes, and starting businesses at impressive rates. These findings are reassuring and should provide the basis for more informed and thoughtful consideration of how to think about current and future Syrian immigrants and refugees. The Syrian immigrants in the study conducted for this issue brief are overwhelmingly people who came to the United States before the recent refugee crisis. Their success is a positive sign that the United States is a place that can provide opportunity for a wide range of people and shows that immigrants from Syria, like other immigrants, are making a real contribution to local economies around the country. Their success is also encouraging as the United States continues to accept refugees fleeing the horrific Syrian war zone. Those refugees will find that it can help to have a receiving community that includes people who speak the same language; share cultural and, in many cases, religious backgrounds; and understand both sides of the transition that ref
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Border Control, Refugee Crisis, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

30. Hiroshima to The Hague

Author:
Charles McClean and Sheila A. Smith
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
President Obama and Prime Minister Abe traveled to Hiroshima, where Obama took the opportunity to speak of the devastating consequences of war in the nuclear era. The summer months that followed were full of politics, with an Upper House election in Japan in July and the Republican and Democratic Party conventions in the US kicking off the general election campaign for president. The Obama administration continued to work toward congressional passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership at the end of the year. With less political contention but growing skepticism over Washington’s ability to ratify the agreement, the Abe Cabinet decided to postpone Diet discussions on the topic until after its election. Regional relations continue to shape the US-Japan alliance agenda with Chinese maritime activity in the East China Sea and South China Sea and ongoing North Korean provocations garnering the most attention. The summer months that followed were full of politics, with an Upper House election in Japan in July and the Republican and Democratic Party conventions in the US kicking off the general election campaign for president. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, continued to take aim at trade deals and US alliances, but the Democratic Party had its “anti-trade” moment when its convention took aim at the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the trade pact concluded by 12 Pacific nations. The Obama administration continued to work toward a Congressional vote in the lame duck session at the end of the year. With less political contention but growing skepticism over Washington’s ability to ratify the agreement, the Abe Cabinet decided that it would postpone Diet discussions until after its election. Regional relations continue to shape the US-Japan alliance agenda. In July, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Tribunal announced its arbitration ruling in a case brought by the Philippines on Chinese behavior in the South China Sea. Beijing was quick to condemn the ruling, but its neighbors in Asia largely welcomed it. In August, Chinese fishing vessels inundated the waters near the Senkaku Islands, prompting Japan’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Sugiyama Shinsuke to call in Chinese Ambassador Cheng Yonghua for a harsh protest. A diplomatic opening came when Foreign Minister Wang Yi traveled to Tokyo on Aug. 24 for a trilateral meeting with the foreign ministers of Japan and the ROK, the first trilateral meeting held in Japan in 11 years. North Korea heralded this Japan-ROK-PRC meeting by testing a ballistic missile launch from a submarine. Pyongyang yet again interrupted regional diplomacy when it launched three missiles into the Sea of Japan during the G20 meeting hosted by Beijing, prompting renewed UN condemnation of North Korea and a hasty set of meetings between the leaders of Japan, South Korea, and the US. A full agenda of Asian multilateral meetings ended the summer, offering plenty of opportunity for diplomacy. For this summer, at least, there seems little reason to believe that diplomacy alone can bridge the growing differences over how to resolve the region’s growing security tensions.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Regional Cooperation, Memory, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America