Search

Begin New Search Topic Asylum

91. From Right to Permission: Asylum, Mediterranean Migrations, and Europe’s War on Smuggling

Author:
Maurizio Albahari
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The European Union (EU) and its member states have sought to curb unauthorized maritime migrant arrivals through a proactive combination of deterrence, intelligence, surveillance, anti-smuggling activities, border enforcement, and policing and readmission collaboration with Turkey, Libya, and Libya’s African neighbors. Through these actions, the right to seek asylum is being de facto transformed into a state-granted permission to seek asylum. Containment policies ensure that one cannot ask for sovereign permission without first paying smugglers. In support of their policies, EU and national authorities widely employ an anti-smuggling discourse that focuses on the ruthlessness of smugglers and the passive victimhood of migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees. This rhetoric aligns itself with what is perceived to be politically palatable, and contributes to preserving a volatile status quo. EU and national policies have failed to curb significantly maritime arrivals. Migrants face worsened conditions on Libyan soil, and death at sea. In recent memory, 2011 was seen as the deadliest year on record for Mediterranean migrations, only to be surpassed first by 2014 and then by 2016. During 2017, at least 3,119 persons died or went missing in the Mediterranean Sea (UNHCR 2017b). Deterrence, containment, and the related war on smuggling prove ineffective, and do not justify such a heavy cost. They quell the outrage cyclically generated by powerful images of Mediterranean carnage, even as they fail to mitigate the carnage itself. European and other liberal-democratic governments can act in more pragmatic, just, and dignified ways, including by attending to migrant agency and to local civic engagements. Provisions for family reunification, refugee resettlement, study visas and temporary protection should be enhanced. More ambitiously, governments need to reverse the very policies that eviscerate the right to seek asylum. Additionally, labor immigration quotas should be set that go beyond attracting skilled “talent” and seasonal workers, to reflect the demands of the job market and of Europe’s ageing societies, while protecting worker rights. Such measures would lessen unauthorized arrivals and the demand for smugglers, ease asylum workloads, and challenge nativist arguments. There is always a political market for effective policies such as these, but until European authorities begin to reject easy resort to tropes of ruthless smuggler criminality, that market will remain disturbingly untapped.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, and North Africa

92. Refugees and the City: The Twenty-first-century Front Line

Author:
Robert Muggah and Adriana Erthal Abdenur
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Today, more than 60 percent of all refugees and 80 percent of all internally displaced persons are living in urban areas. While cities are periodically overwhelmed by sudden mass influxes of forced migrants, they are remarkably effective at absorbing populations on the move. With some exceptions, the international community — the UN Refugee Agency, in particular — has been slow to empower cities to assume a greater role in protecting, assisting and promoting durable solutions for refugees, asylum claimants and other groups of concern. New compacts on migration and refugees only tangentially address cities’ pivotal role in shaping the experience of forced migrants. Instead, cities are developing solutions on their own. This paper assesses the characteristics of the urban displacement crisis and identifies challenges and opportunities confronting cities, challenging myths associated with the “refugee burden” and offering preliminary recommendations for stepping up international, national and municipal cooperation.
Topic:
Migration, United Nations, Refugee Issues, Urban, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Global Focus

93. Five theses on the "refugee crisis" in Germany

Author:
Nele Katharina Wissmann
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The term "refugee crisis" is not uncontroversial in Germany; it is indeed accused of presenting the refugees as being responsible for the crisis. The events that have occurred since the summer of 2015 should rather be called "crisis of the authorities", given that Germany could have anticipated the massive increase in the number of refugees. The use of the term "refugee crisis" in this article is axiologically neutral and reflects its present common use in politics, the media and specialised literature. The term "refugee", which does not reflect the heterogeneity of immigrant situations in Germany, is less common in France than in Germany. When used in France, it is to facilitate the understanding of the reader. The definition used here is that of the Geneva Convention: "the term "refugee" will apply to any person who is outside their country of nationality and who is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country". There will be a distinction between "tolerated" refugees and persons enjoying subsidiary protection and asylum seekers, in accordance with Article 16a of the German Constitution. The refugee crisis in Germany was first mentioned in the light of the events in the summer of 2015; at the time, the chroniclers established a direct link between the refugee crisis and the "open door policy". Admittedly, this characterisation is not entirely false, given the prolonged absence of reliable statistics on immigration, which can be explained by, among other things, double registration and the fact that some people have continued their journey to other EU countries without declaring it. Nevertheless, this phenomenon reflects more the shortcomings of the authorities concerning refugee registration than a real political orientation of the government in response to the increase in the number of refugees. Germany has, on the contrary, reacted by progressively toughening its asylum rights, and seems to be permanently closing its doors to many groups of migrants.
Topic:
Immigration, Governance, Refugee Crisis, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Germany and European Union

94. High-Tech Humanitarians: Airtel Uganda’s Partnership with DanChurchAid

Author:
Patrick Meagher, Ammar A. Malik, Edward Mohr, and Yasemin Irvin-Erickson
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Urban Institute
Abstract:
The world is in the midst of an unprecedented refugee crisis, and Uganda’s response to the influx of asylum-seekers from South-Sudan is considered successful and is therefore a valuable target for study and replication. Uganda accepts refugees regardless of point of origin and gives them the rights of freedom of movement and the opportunity to seek employment. This case study examines the official government and humanitarian agency response to increased refugee numbers, both in terms of policies and resources. It also focuses on telecommunication access and humanitarian cash transfers, and it analyzes the partnership between Danish Church Aid and Airtel Uganda.
Topic:
Government, Humanitarian Aid, Science and Technology, Refugee Issues, Immigrants, International Development, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Uganda, Africa, and South Sudan

95. How to Address the Global Refugee Crisis and Safeguard U.S. National Security

Author:
Eleanor Acer
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
Historically, the United States has been a global leader in protecting vulnerable refugees fleeing persecution. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized the moral and strategic importance of a strong commitment to refugee protection. But the Trump Administration has adopted policies that diverge from this historic leadership, to the detriment of U.S. national security interests. Under PresidentTrump’s directives, the United States has banned refugees from Muslim-majority countries, decimated the U.S. refugee resettlement program, curtailed access to asylum, taken children from the arms of asylum- seeking parents, refused to release refugees from U.S. immigration jails, and undermined due process in asylum adjudications. Thus far this fiscal year, the United States resettled only 60 Syrian refugees, a 99% drop from 2016. The president and administration officials have repeatedly employed rhetoric that paints refugees and asylum seekers as threats, frauds and criminals. Even though unauthorized border crossings are at historically low levels, the president directed that the National Guard bedeployed to the U.S. southern border “until” Congress strips away legal protections and authorizes the long-term detention of children and families seeking refugee protection. This race to the bottom has global consequences. Not only have thousands of refugees had their lives irreparably impacted, but the global humanitarian and human rights systems themselves are threatened by the Trump Administration’s statements and actions. In addition to relieving human suffering, these systems foster global stability and security. The United States should change course immediately, before the damage is irreversible. Though the global refugee crisis lacks easy solutions, there are many steps the United States could take to alleviate suffering and increase regional and global security—if the U.S. government were invested in tackling the problem. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration’s political strategy seems to reston fomenting public anxiety around questions of migration. Until this changes, Congress must use its legislative and oversight authorities to restore U.S. global leadership on refugee protection, the courts must stand firm behind U.S. legal obligations, and American citizens must demand an end to politicized fearmongering. The government has policy tools that would allow it to lead a comprehensive initiative to address the global refugee and displacement crisis. By working with the international community to effectively address these challenges, the United States could safeguard the stability of strategically-important countries and regions, bolster allies, enhance the ability of front-line countries to host refugees, uphold the rule of law internationally, and restore its tarnished global leadership. As the world leader in humanitarian assistance and resettlement, the United States has a unique role to play, both in leading by example and in encouraging other states to increase their aid, development investment, and resettlement contributions. Most critically, the United States should champion adherence to human rights and refugee protection conventions, promoting the rule of law globally and supporting the ability of many refugees to live safely in countries near their homes. This paper lays out key steps that the United States should take to lead a comprehensive initiative to address the global refugee crisis. Though the Trump Administration is unlikely to put these measures into effect any time soon, it is important that those interested in fixing the global refugee crisis understand that the U.S. government has many tools at its disposal should it choose to use them.
Topic:
Security, Humanitarian Aid, Refugees, and Asylum
Political Geography:
United States and North America

96. How the United States Should Address Refugee Protection at its Border

Author:
Eleanor Acer
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
Instead, the Trump Administration and Congress should focus on effective solutions that safeguard both American ideals and interests—including: Address the Actual Causes of Displacement. Instead of threats to cut aid to programs in Central America, the United States should increase targeted support for effective programs that decrease gang and other violence in these countries, promote the rule of law, and build accountability for human rights abuses. A task force co-chaired by former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tom Ridge and former USAID Administrator Gayle Smith warned that cuts to foreign assistance “risk creating greater problems and greater flows of people later,” ultimately “weakening our security.” They recommended the United States increase development aid to address root causes, encourage other countries, institutions, and the private sector to invest in fragile states, and focus foreign assistance on governance and other reforms that enable private sector growth. Strengthen Refugee Protection in Other Countries in the Region. As the UN Refugee Agency has reported, Central American refugees are seeking asylum in Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and Belize, as well as the United States. The United States should increase support for the UN Refugee Agency and the development of strong refugee protection systems in Mexico and other countries. These asylum systems must actually grant protection to refugees, conduct fair and timely adjudications, and eliminate barriers that block refugees from asylum. In Mexico for instance, many are blocked from asylum by a counterproductive filing deadline, low recognition rates, lack of effective appeal procedures, and migration officers who deport asylum seekers rather than refer them for asylum processing. In addition to encouraging Mexico and other countries to uphold human rights standards by providing protection to refugees, the United States should provide a strong example by upholding its own refugee protection obligations. If Mexico and other countries build strong and rights-respecting systems, more refugees will be able to choose to seek protection in those countries. Follow U.S. and International Law at Borders. The Trump Administration and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must stop blocking, turning away, or threatening to bar from asylum people seeking refuge at U.S. border posts or after crossing the U.S. border. Instead, the Trump Administration and U.S. agencies must uphold U.S. law, end the orchestrated blockade and slow-down on processing at ports of entry, and ensure timely CBP processing of asylum seekers. Refugees turned away from U.S. ports face deadly dangers from traffickers, smugglers, and other criminals in Mexico, and the country is far from meeting the legal standards for a “safe third country.” By blocking or turning away people seeking protection, U.S. officials are violating and attempting to evade both U.S laws and treaty obligations. Given its historic role as a global leader, the United States’ failure to protect refugees at home reverberates around the world, discouraging other nations from providing refuge at their borders. This practice is also counterproductive from a border protection perspective. DHS’s own Office of the Inspector General recently reported evidence that CBP’s practice of turning away and limiting entry of asylum seekers at official border posts “leads some aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the border illegally.” A supervisor confirmed that the agency “sees an increase in illegal entries when aliens are metered at ports of entry.” Receive and Manage Refugee Arrivals While Upholding American Ideals. The United States must stop responding to the increase in refugee protection requests with punitive and threatening actions like family separation, family detention, bans on asylum, criminal prosecutions, and military deployments. These actions conflict with American ideals (confirmed by recent polling), violate U.S. law, and harm children—as the American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly warned. They also don’t address the real problem. As former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson explained in 2018, “[i]t is basic human instinct to save yourself and your family by fleeing a burning building.” He concluded that attempts to deter people from fleeing have ultimately proven ineffective because the “push” factors of violence and poverty persist in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In addition to taking the steps outlined above to address root causes, the United States should launch effective, humane, and fiscally prudent strategies for receiving and managing people seeking U.S. protection—including: A Comprehensive Case Management Program. Instead of wasting more money on immigration jails and trying to overturn safeguards on detaining children, ICE should launch a community-based case management program using specially trained case managers to oversee asylum seeker cases. The Family Case Management Program operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resulted in 99% attendance for ICE check-ins and appointments, and 100% attendance at court. DHS’s own advisory committee recommended expansion of community-based programs rather than detention. This approach is cost effective and enjoys strong support from Americans according to 2018 polling. Support Access and Funding for Legal Representation. Congress should support increased funding for legal information and funds for legal counsel. Statistical studies have repeatedly confirmed that asylum seekers represented by counsel overwhelmingly appear for their hearings, making legal representation a more fiscally prudent expenditure than detention. Assure Fair, Timely, and Adequately Staffed Asylum Adjudications. Congress and the administration must ensure necessary staff levels to reduce backlogs and ensure fairness of asylum and immigration court adjudications. Reforms should include: rolling back use of expedited removal for high protection populations, a fast-track process for urgent humanitarian cases delayed by USCIS’s use of the “last in first out” approach, and removal of “cancellation” cases from the asylum system by creating a process for such applications. Critically, political appointees leading agencies conducting these adjudications must stop painting asylum claims as false or lacking in merit and altogether halt the politicization of immigration judge hiring.
Topic:
Security, Border Control, Refugees, and Asylum
Political Geography:
United States and North America

97. Human Rights of Non-Status Migrants in Japan

Author:
Kazue Takamura and Erik Martinez Kuhonta
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University (ISID)
Abstract:
Japan employs a mandatory detention policy toward non-status migrants, including asylum-seekers. This practice triggers a set of human rights concerns that are in conflict with international human rights law. The number of asylumseekers has increased sharply from 1,202 in 2010 to 10,901 in 2016. Yet, the country’s refugee acceptance rate was a record low of 0.25 percent. Migrant detainees often experience fundamental human rights violations, including the lack of access to legal representation, prolonged periods of detention, inadequate health care, and unexplained deaths in detention facilities. Japan’s immigration authorities normalize their closed-door policies toward asylum-seekers by questioning the “refugeeness” of asylumseekers and labeling them as “fake asylum-seekers.” It is necessary to facilitate active and sustainable multi-stake holders’ collaboration among NGOs, municipal governments, health professionals, lawyers, and scholars in order to challenge the state’s human rights violations toward migrants.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Immigration, Asylum, and Migrant Workers
Political Geography:
Japan and Asia

98. United Kingdom’s Foreign Policy towards Syrian Refugees

Author:
Najam-ud-din Muhammad Farani, Iram Khalid, and Muhammad Rizwan Abbassi
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
United Kingdom’s (UK) foreign policy towards the Syrian crisis is quite significant with reference to the entry of Syrian refugees into Europe and the strategic balance of power in the Middle East. UK being a major power in the European continent understands the importance of sharing the humanitarian responsibility for protecting, aiding and accommodating the Syrian refugees. The British Government is aware of the fact that it is not only providing humanitarian assistance to the Syrian refugees but also going to host their hostilities and affiliations in the ongoing conflict inside Syria. The arrival of Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in UK presents a complex case of national versus humanitarian concerns in foreign policy analysis. This research paper is an attempt to focus on the convergence and divergence of interests between UK’s Humanitarian assistance policy directed towards Syrian refugees and the British national security interests with reference to the strategic balance of power in the Middle East.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Humanitarian Aid, Refugees, Syrian War, and Asylum
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, and Syria

99. The Visegrad Co-operation, Poland, Slovakia and Austria in the Czech Foreign Policy: Coping with Irritants?

Author:
Vít Dostál
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Institute of International Relations Prague
Abstract:
Since the developments in Central Europe were very dynamic in 2017, the importance of the Visegrad co-operation, Poland, Austria and Slovakia in the Czech foreign policy has grown. The general elections in Austria, the judicial reform in Poland and the subsequent triggering of Article 7 of the Treaty of the EU against Poland, the Polish and Hungarian EU Presidencies and various EU dossiers, such as the dossier on the reform of the EU’s asylum system, would all suggest that the Czech Republic should have paid more attention to the region. However, the Czech Republic chose rather a free-riding and adaptational approach toward it, and in some cases, it has shown disinterest in its policy vis-à-vis the region. There were fewer political contacts with and initiatives related to the other V4 states than in the previous years, and the Czech foreign policy was not able to address major dilemmas of the Central European policy. Interestingly, at the same time, the importance of the region was reflected in a higher politicisation and polarisation of the issues related to the Visegrad Group, Poland and Hungary.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Reform, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Poland, Hungary, Austria, Czech Republic, Central Europe, and Slovakia

100. Creating safe zones and safe corridors in conflict situations: Providing protection at home or preventing the search for asylum?

Author:
Geoff Gilbert and Anna Magdalena Rüsch
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The conflict in Syria has prompted renewed calls for so-called ‘safe zones’ and ‘safe corridors’ to prevent people from needing to seek protection abroad as refugees, and to encourage refugees to return home. Given the inherent dangers that arise from trying to leave a conflict zone and travelling onwards to seek asylum, the idea of creating safe zones within States has been put forward as a positive humanitarian alternative. Yet, there are a number of legal and practical preconditions that must be met for safety to be guaranteed. The reality of conflict today means that in all but the most extreme circumstances – where flight is impossible – safe zones cannot be a substitute for asylum in another country. They may be the best response to people trapped in a conflict zone, but that is all. They do not provide true ‘protection’ as envisaged by international refugee law. Furthermore, the law is underdeveloped and the practice is too erratic and random for safe zones to be a proper response to a humanitarian crisis. If States in the global north want to spare refugees the dangers of irregular flight, they should establish proper pathways to safety through humanitarian and migration channels, and push for peace in those areas of the world where conflict is rife.1 Safe corridors could provide that route out – as well as operating to allow those trapped in conflict zones to carry on with their lives by safely accessing work, education, markets and health care, to the extent possible. This policy brief begins by asking some fundamental questions about safe zones and safe corridors, and sketching the complexity of the international legal frameworks that apply. It then briefly examines the history of the law and practice of safe zones and safe corridors, before analysing the preconditions to their creation, their qualities and character, how they are accessed, and how protection and other human rights can be assured. Finally, it considers the responsibility and accountability of various international actors with respect to safe zones and safe corridors. The existence of different terms to describe the concepts, and the interplay of several different sub-branches of international law, make the analysis more complicated, but the conclusion reached is that in all but the most extreme circumstances – where flight is impossible – safe zones can never provide a substitute for asylum. They cannot provide the same degree of protection that a safe third country can. By contrast, safe corridors can enable people to flee to a place of safety, and at the very least can help those unable to leave by facilitating access to vital services.
Topic:
Syrian War, Asylum, Armed Conflict, Protection, and Safe Zones
Political Geography:
Global Focus