Forum Addresses Current Migrant Crisis

In an effort to stem the influx of migrants entering Europe, the European Union introduced policy on Sept. 14 aimed at resettling 40,000 migrants resting in Greece and Italy. The plan, to be adopted by member states on a voluntary basis, reveals an incipient supranational organization unable to address issues of sovereign rights. In May, a more ambitious proposal had called for the establishment of mandatory quotas that would distribute 160,000 migrants across the union, a small fraction of the total entering the EU. Migrants, an umbrella term that includes refugees and asylum seekers, travel across the Mediterranean in droves despite its description by the UN as “the world’s most dangerous border crossing.” Haphazard attempts to ease the difficulties of this movement, either through securing borders or establishing quotas, raises concerns over the lack of human rights for migrants.

Although the European Union experienced a surge in border crossings following the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, continuing violence within Syria adds a new dimension to the crisis. Syrians fleeing their country’s four-year civil war account for 34% of migrants destined for Europe. By contrast, Afghans, the second largest migrant group, make up 12% of incoming expatriates.

Europe faces a mixed migration influx, in which economic migrants and refugees travel in tandem. While refugees fleeing homegrown conflict are guaranteed international protections under the 1951 Refugee Convention, economic migrants are granted no such rights; as asylum seekers without approved claims, their lives remain in a state of uncertainty. The tempestuous nature of reviewing asylum applications reveals itself as another flashpoint. A 2010 UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) study found that, depending on the country, applicants were not always offered interviews. In one country, UNHCR found 171 identically worded interview reports; only the name of the applicant and the country of origin differed.

The Dublin Regulation, which delegates responsibility to the country of entry for application review, in theory establishes a common European asylum policy. But, because the burden of responsibility disproportionally falls on states with exposed borders, enforcement remains inconsistent. As countries permit migrants to pass through secondary destinations in the north or west, Germany and Sweden emerge as coveted destinations.

Khalid Koser, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, believes that the surge in migrants reinforces nativist fears. “We used to think of migration as a human securities issue: protecting people and providing assistance,” he says. “Now we clearly perceive—or misperceive—migration as a national security issue. And the risk of securitizing migration is that you risk legitimizing extraordinary responses.”

Italy, a popular point of arrival, has reneged on migration as a human securities issue. Under the Bossi-Fini immigration law, migrants must secure work contracts before entering the country; aiding non-contracted immigrants is punishable by fine or jail.

In Hungary, a series of emergency laws adopted in September allow police forces to operate detention centers. As Budapest attempts to seal the border through the construction of a 109-mile razor wire fence, it flouts the open borders agreement called for in the Schengen Agreement. The presence of 50 police officers, wearing riot gear and equipped with gas canisters, near the Hungary-Serbia border on Sept. 14 underscores each nation’s response as a means of self-preservation.

A sustained rise in migrants has further galvanized rightist, neo-Nazis parties across Europe. In Denmark, the new right-wing government has paid for advertisements in the Lebanese press warning potential immigrants against travel. And in Sweden, where politicians remain receptive to asylum seekers and refugees, Sweden Democrats maintain a degree of popular support; running on an anti-immigration platform, the Democrats hold a 25% favorability rating.

Tristian Borer, Professor of government and international relations at Connecticut College, believes that news outlets fuel nativist reactions through their incendiary coverage of the crisis. Speaking at a forum on migration patterns, Professor Borer notes that The New York Times employs water imagery to portray movements across borders. Suggesting that a “flood of migrants” has beset Europe, the Times dehumanizes the toils of travel. “These are people fleeing failed states, and the word ‘flood’ implies that they are acting like animals; they will stamp over European countries unless we let them in. Is it any surprise that people don’t want to accept refugees?”

Contrary to the more generous immigration policies adopted in Germany, Professor Borer notes the tempered response to the crisis from the United States and Gulf Nations. Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have yet to present resettlement options to Syrian refugees; the United States has allowed entry for fewer than 2,000 Syrian refugees in the past four years. To compensate for closed borders, these countries earmark millions of dollars toward refugee aid. The $574 million in donations from the United States account for 31% of UN aid, and the United Arab Emirates follows closely behind with $530 million given in relief.

A shortfall in cash is “really the most immediate reason the refugee regime broke down,” Professor Borer says. Because donations are issued voluntarily, the UN has few avenues to pursue its goals. According to a July press release, the World Food Programme, a branch of the UN, remains 81% underfunded in its regional refugee program. As a result, vulnerable Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan face deep cuts in food assistance.

Professor Borer questions whether states geographically guarded against refugee crossings may ethically “buy themselves out of responsibility.” Because the level of donations received by the UN directly influences geopolitical actors, she understands that “the whole system has to work together. When one part of the system falls apart, countries build walls. Nations don’t want to feel they’re in this alone, and no one is here to help.” •