Immigration and Refugees: Understanding the Impact and Finding Solutions, Apuntes de Lei de Inmigración

¡Descarga Immigration and Refugees: Understanding the Impact and Finding Solutions y más Apuntes en PDF de Lei de Inmigración solo en Docsity! Olivia Sundberg, Spring 2016 Workshop for the Finnish National Debate Association An Introduction to Immigration Debates and the Refugee Crisis Debating Immigration N.B.: Any references to “migrants” or “immigrants” are not intended to suggest they are a homogenous group. This is only intended to bring to light clashes and issues that tend to appear within the spectrum of what we call “immigration debates” – different arguments work better or worse for different groups of people. General tips ● You will never be required to oppose all immigration or make offensive or generalising arguments. ● Immigration debates are tipping point debates. This means that (especially in opposition) you should look at several things and explain why a specific number of immigrants in a specific context has a specific harm, i.e. why the motion reaches a harmful tipping point: o look at the specific words and numbers of the motion (e.g. THBT the EU should take unlimited refugees, THW open all borders including economic migrants) and the people that are most directly affected by it, explaining what the impact of this is; o look at the current context and identify particular pressures, a particular political or social environment, and explain why here and now the motion has a crucial impact; and o look at specific institutions that cannot be extended unlimitedly, e.g. schools or hospitals (you cannot train more teachers or doctors from scratch). These institutions have a tipping point / critical mass – identify one of them and explain what happens when that institution fails. ● This means that when making arguments, e.g. “there will be an anti-immigration backlash”, you should recognise that said sentiment already exists. You need to explain why the motion specifically makes things change for the worse and why this change is significant. ● When opposing immigration, you can defend things too. You can and should clearly define and qualify what you stand for: e.g. prioritising refugees over economic migrants given limited resources, e.g. sending more aid to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey rather than accepting unlimited refugees. ● Do not forget to frame and characterise. Both sides can “win” a characterisation point or clash, so you should argue this and engage. A common clash in a lot of debates about loosening borders goes as follows: o Proposition: If we loosen borders, vulnerable people in source countries will benefit the most. This is because richer people can currently sustain themselves abroad and get visas so little changes for them, and because poorer people are the ones with the most push factors and reasons to leave, such as no jobs or state discrimination. o Opposition: If we loosen borders, only already privileged people in source countries will benefit. This is because richer people are the only ones with enough savings to move abroad, who know the right contacts and have access to avenues on how to leave, who have had foreign language educations, and who have the most to gain through higher maximum salaries abroad. o A lot of powerful arguments and impacts for both sides depend on winning this clash, so don’t forget to argue who will be affected the most! Olivia Sundberg, Spring 2016 Workshop for the Finnish National Debate Association Four common stakeholders in immigration debates 1. Migrants Themselves The Philosophy of Borders ● There is a consensus that borders are arbitrary, but that they are necessary. Borders have always had huge symbolic power worth being aware of in debates: e.g. the Berlin Wall, the Mexico-US War, the Green Line, the Iron Curtain, the Palestinian Blockade, etc. – all of these emphasise divisions, tyranny vs freedom, east vs west, civilisation vs barbarians, Christianity vs Islam, etc. ● However, borders are so hugely implemented that we forget their scale. Since the Berlin Wall, dozens of countries (not in the least European countries) have built internal and external borders and fences. 125 people were killed trying to cross the Berlin Wall in its entire existence. 15,000 migrants died trying to enter Europe just between 1988 and 2011; we weekly discover people dying in trucks or drowning in the hundreds. ● Borders are still defended and there is little disagreement that states should have control over who they let in – a little bit because of security, and a lot about sovereignty and identity. E.g. Schengen – in order to sustain free movement within Europe and a shared identity, countries in the border of Europe have to implement significantly stricter border controls with the outside. Obligations and benefits to migrants ● It is easy to prove obligations to people wanting to enter your state, in most debates: Colonialism, neo-colonialist trade deals, military interventions, propping up dictatorships or promoting unstable regimes, borders being arbitrary and why that is harmful, etc. ● But this is very generic. It will not always apply – and it will certainly not apply to every individual migrant. Not everyone in e.g. India has suffered personally as a result of the British Empire, some in fact may have benefited. So why do we still have obligations in those instances? ● You can also argue a utilitarian calculus – they gain a lot, we lose little. ● In any of these cases: You need to prove why promoting immigration into your country IS a good way of exercising those obligations, i.e. that it will actually benefit the immigrants more than alternative means, e.g. aid to their home country. Benefits of immigration > aid (there are many more – this should give you only an idea) ● Urgency ● Specific link to obligations (e.g. sense of statehood, e.g. infrastructure that they built) ● More benefits in a range of currencies, e.g. greater choice and freedom ● You can make sure it benefits the right people Benefits of aid > immigration (there are many more – this should give you only an idea) ● Helping en masse rather than only helping the lucky ones who can leave ● More comfortable for potential migrants (do not have to leave your family, job, security, identity, etc. and face violent attacks or backlash in the new country) ● More sustainable. Harms local citizens less so it can be continued for longer Olivia Sundberg, Spring 2016 Workshop for the Finnish National Debate Association 4. Current immigrants in the target country This group is often forgotten ● They are important: They have equal rhetorical and actual importance as new immigrants. They can suffer or be benefitted from an immigration policy too. ● Benefits: More arrivals from their home country can offer more support, create thicker communities and make them feel much more comfortable in the target country. ● Harms: More arrivals can also slow down integration by entrenching diasporas where all speak the same language etc. Similarly, more arrivals can also harm stereotypes about the entire community (especially if looser border restrictions mean that less qualified people enter the country). The backlash caused by anti-immigration sentiment harms them as well (and unlike recent immigrants, they never made the choice of facing it or staying in their source country). Positive integration policies can minimise a lot of the harms (to this group and all others) ● Contact theory is an important idea in integration debates. It states that ignorance breeds intolerance, and that putting different groups in every day interactions with each other helps break those stereotypes; it is harder to be xenophobic towards your cousin, or racist towards your flatmate. ● Narratives also play an important role, and the way that the media depicts immigrants or refugees can change norms of treatment, behaviour, expectations, and people’s opinions when voting on policy. Language like “migrants” or “economic migrants” specifically as opposed to “refugees” or “asylum seekers” (or even “expat” as opposed to “immigrant”) can subtly nudge a lot of views. To what extent should states promote full social integration? ● This is the subject of hundreds of debates. Generally speaking, this is an area where pragmatism often trumps what research states is better for a positive multicultural society – but there are exceptions to the research. ● In practice, isolated diasporas tend to form between immigrant communities, ranging from “China town” or similar areas in most cities, to entire towns like Södertälje in Sweden. Diasporas form naturally, and are often promoted since they facilitate the provision of similar needs for cultural, practical or situational reasons (e.g. a mosque or a synagogue in a Muslim- or Jewish-concentrated area; creating programmes that teach the local language etc.). These communities are sometimes purposely created at state level – such as the UK putting most of the refugees it accepts in the same few areas, where it is cheapest to build housing and provide services. ● Incidentally, migrant diasporas tend to form in areas of high poverty (hence why building houses there tends to be cheaper) and where the provision of services is de-prioritised. This (alongside the lack of opportunities for mixing with citizens and being forced to speak the language) is one of the reasons reason that diasporas tend not to be positive for integration, but rather culminate in segregated communities. Sweden has received a lot of praise for, for example, placing the refugees it accepts in a wide range of schools, rather than allowing them to concentrate in specific schools or areas. Olivia Sundberg, Spring 2016 Workshop for the Finnish National Debate Association The Refugee Crisis An introduction to the issues, and the EU-Turkey Refugee Deal in particular. A tip for refugee debates in general: Be very clear about what group of people you want to defend / what outcome you want / what priority you think is the most important in a debate. The refugee crisis is utterly complex and has no easy answers, and as such any debate will have a lot of trade-offs. The team that wins is often the team that best justifies their trade-off. For example, accepting as many refugees as possible, vs deterring people from making an exceptionally risky trip to travel to Europe, are two very important and often mutually exclusive goals. Common mistakes “Why do they all come to Europe?” ● The developing world hosts 86% of the world’s refugees. Most are in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Only around 4% of displaced Syrians have attempted to reach Europe. ● People seeking asylum tend to want to stay close to home, expecting or hoping that the conflict will end in the next year and that they will be able to return. In practice, more than half of refugees and asylum seekers have been in exile for more than 5 years – and the average for this half is 17 years being displaced from home. ● Around 60% of the displaced (more than 6 million people) remain in Syria, mainly unwillingly, because Jordan and Lebanon have effectively kept their borders closed since 2014. “Are ISIS infiltrating refugee flows and smuggling routes?” ● It is possible but exceptionally rare. For one, smuggling routes are risky, you face awful treatment including the possibility of detention, and you are not guaranteed the right to stay. ● Europe is very keen to protect its borders and conducts extensive checks on all asylum claimants: Frontex, RABIT (the Rapid Border Intervention Team), Europol, Eurojust, satellite surveillance, naval patrols, immigration detention centres, offshore controls, and allies providing support, are some of the tools and institutions Europe employs to protect its borders. ● Additionally, terrorists often hold European citizenship or long-term residence permits. Where they do not, they have the resources to create fraudulent documents. ● Asylum seekers tend to be mischaracterised. 50% of all refugees are children. Although single men do travel a lot, this is often to secure asylum before their families join them to avoid the perilous journey – so it does not make sense to only accept women and children for fear of letting in extremist men. “They are all from Syria” ● Syria is the largest source of refugees and asylum seekers, and over 50% of the world’s refugees come from only 3 countries. Huge numbers of refugees also come from Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Central African Republic, Iraq and Eritrea (in order). ● This has big policy implications. Firstly, it limits ways of offering help; e.g. you cannot put all refugees in the same camp or detention centre and expect historic ethnic tensions from back home to be left behind, or e.g. you cannot give them all one interpreter or put them in one school and expect them to speak the same language. ● It also leads to discrimination. Before the Syrian War, ¼ of refugees were from Afghanistan (and the conflict there is deadlier now than ever). Now, Afghan refugees often get worse treatment, are put at the back of the queue when applying for asylum in many jurisdictions, and may even be deported to Afghanistan by countries such as Turkey or Germany – this often being in favour of Syrian refugees. Afghan asylum applications may also be rejected if they have spent significant time in a safe third country – but these include Iran and Pakistan, where Afghan asylum seekers tend to face discrimination, police violence, and a denial of basic services. Olivia Sundberg, Spring 2016 Workshop for the Finnish National Debate Association Some problems in Europe’s response to the refugee crisis Borders ● Europe has developed a large number of institutions (listed above) to protect its borders. Some states additionally engage in discrimination, e.g. only accepting Christian refugees, leaving many hopeless. ● Unfortunately, there is no way of getting to Europe legally if you intend to apply for asylum, and there is no real way of applying for asylum before reaching Europe. This is especially true if you are paperless or are, for example, a Palestinian from the West Bank, who cannot get a visa to anywhere. ● Even if you stop illegal smuggling (which so far has only kept changing its routes), this does little about the push factors, i.e. the war in Syria, risk of terrorism in Pakistan, etc. Dublin III Regulations ● The EU allocates responsibility for examining an asylum claim to the first EU country an asylum seeker sets foot in and the country where asylum was first sought. A system was needed, because otherwise nobody would take full responsibility over an asylum claim, or you would have multiple applications in different EU countries, clogging the system. This was designed before the current crisis and unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers in EU history. ● 7 Member States process 75% of asylum claims, which is completely unfeasible. In 2015 Greece will receive more than 600,000 refugees. In addition, it has a large residual population of third-country nationals who have applied for asylum in the past and want to do so again, or never applied for asylum in the past but wish to do so now. Yet Greece could never manage to process two or three hundred thousand asylum applications per year, nor realistically integrate all those who would be granted international protection with the current eligibility rate hovering at 50%. ● This is unfair. It also only works based on coercion: Asylum seekers tend to think it is unfair and realise that their application is likely to never get touched, so they move on beyond their first country of arrival. Trying to enforce Dublin, states have tried to keep them in those countries by detaining them, escorting them, forcing them to take their fingerprints, and other violations on human rights. ● This is why Germany decided to ignore Dublin and stop deporting refugees to their first country of entry in 2015. Discrimination ● Countries have different standards on the minimum quality of asylum centres, treatment of asylum claims, opportunities for refugees to integrate in society, and safe country lists (i.e. countries from which an asylum claim is automatically rejected or moved to the back of the queue). ● This leads to discriminatory treatment, where the same asylum claim may be accepted in one country but rejected in another. Generally, Northern countries have much better standards than Southern countries. Language, family ties, the existence of diaspora communities, social benefits or simply the myth surrounding the integration possibilities in some countries create the web of factors that asylum seekers consider when deciding which country they want to reach. ● The EU is trying to reach a common European standard, but there is a fear that this will lead to lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator, i.e. to meet the demands of the most xenophobic or anti-refugee Member States. Lack of will in Member States ● In September 2015, EU ministers agreed to resettle 120,000 migrants from Greece and Italy across 23 member states. So far, only 1,000 have been resettled. This is mostly due to a lot of states withdrawing their commitment to taking their quota of refugees. Countries like Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have refused to resettle any refugees.