Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1. The daily allowance for asylum seekers in Sweden is an interesting concept. Refugees often have spent all of their financial resources on their journey to a new country. Hashem is a good example of this: by the time he arrived in Sweden, he was reliant entirely on donations from family members to keep him financially afloat. The stipend that Migrationsverket provides refugees is a good humanitarian effort to help asylum seekers overcome financial barriers to entering society. In this sense the stipend is more than justified for refugees arriving in the country. However, the UNHCR is specific that refugees have the right to work, and providing opportunities for refugees to find legitimate work in a host country provides them stability and generates economic revenue for the nation. As a result, it would be best, in my opinion, for Sweden to create stipends for asylum seekers that taper off with time so that these refugees start to find work and become less dependent on the Swedish government as time goes on.
2. If Hashem were not granted permanent status as a refugee in Sweden, it would have created a large issue: He could not be reunited with his family. At least not in Sweden. This means he likely would have left and gone to another country in the EU in an attempt to find a nation that was willing to help bring his wife and two children from Egypt. If these options were expended, then Hashem might have even returned to Egypt and attempted to make the journey back to Europe with his family. It is a very fortunate thing that he was able to obtain permanent residency in Sweden.
1. Though it is relatively small, the most important aspect of refugee repatriation is the concept that host nation governments are responsible to work with refugee home nations to coordinate all necessary and appropriate logistics to repatriate refugees. This concept is how the guiding principles of absolutely safe and voluntary repatriation for refugees meet and create a path home for refugees that upholds their rights. If done properly, these logistical efforts will create the avenue for refugees to return home without forcing a single one of them down that avenue. Thus, when done properly, the responsibility of host nations to coordinate logistics is where all important principles of repatriation meet.
2. In today’s day where refugees are at an all time high and repatriation rates are at all time lows, finding viable alternative options is an urgent necessity for global community in order to create long-term sustainable solutions to the refugee crisis. The simplest alternative to repatriation of refugees is naturalization into the host country. In camps like Dadaab, refugees have lived in their host nation for decades. Some residents have lived longer in the camp than in their country of origin. Considering the duration of their stay and the convenience of the solution, naturalization appears to be a good option. One drawback to this solution is that nationals in the host nation often feel threatened by a presence of large group of people who are of a different nationality. There is usually significant pushback to naturalization on the grounds that naturalized refugees will have different political interests than nationals. The validity these perceived threats has yet to be evaluated. Another option is resettlement in a third country. Nations like the United States and those in the European Union have had variable responses to the refugee crisis in previous years have a responsibility to the international community to help develop long term solutions to the crisis and take a fair share in bearing the solution.
1. The European refugee crisis jeopardizes the future of the European Union because the ways in which the EU has treated refugees throughout the crisis has voided key principles that the EU was founded on in the post-World War II era. In closing borders, deporting refugees, refusing to conduct rescue missions for sea journeys, and generally lacking a cohesive effort to streamline the process of intaking refugees that simply continue to arrive in Europe have put thousands of lives of refugees in limbo or returned them to danger. It is a terrible lapse in judgement as it is a pattern of behavior that mimics many mistakes made by European nations that contributed to the Holocaust. Furthermore, the refugee crisis has separated the EU into two groups: the nations that take the brunt of refugees that arrive on the continent, and those nations that have adopted isolationist policies. The rift in the Union has started to create tension that will continue to mount as the EU interacts with Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and other nations to create deals that pertain to the thousands more refugees which these other nations house. The isolationist nations will likely begin to not want to interact with these nations, where as the nations bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis will want to eagerly work with them. This could lead to political stalls, and perhaps worse outcomes long term if policies in the EU do not become cohesive.
2. A few factors can cause a migration route to rapidly open. First is Facebook (and other social media platforms) as the rush of the Balkan route in 2015 evidences. A contributing factor to the rapid rise in certain routes is (who I dub) the college bachelor. Single men in their twenties or thirties who do not travel with families are more likely to take risks to arrive in a better place, and are more likely to risk taking a new route. As Kingsley notes in the book, it was the college bachelor archetype that first braved the landmine-ridden fields between Serbia and Croatia when Hungary finally closed its border to refugees attempting to enter the country. These venturous pioneers act as a pattern for others to follow in their footsteps once the route is proven to be somewhat safe. The rapid decline in a migration route can come in a few ways. First, if there is a policy shift (e.g., Turkey being paid by the EU to limit refugees that attempt to sail to Greek Islands, Hungary building a better wall and enforcing a no-entry policy) it can create barriers and risks to travel certain routes that individuals are less willing to take. This does not ever stop the flow of traffic through a route, but it can contribute. But rapid decline in routes tends to occur if another route opens (or simply becomes more widely known) that is cheaper and safer than the most popular route. A clear example of this phenomenon is the rise of the Balkan route over the Mediterranean route.
1. Newly resettled refugees require a host of special healthcare services when arriving in their host nation. One factor that contributes significantly to many unique health related needs of refugees is torture. Many refugees face horrific conditions on their journey and some undergo physical torture as a part of it. When arriving in a camp or in their host nation, refugees who have endured torture may have developed chronic pain, dental issues, and PTSD. Treating these conditions will require a combination of primary care, physical therapy, dental procedures, and mental health counseling to adequately address the needs of these refugees. Often refugees will come with a variety of other health issues including, but not limited to, infectious diseases like Hepatitis A and B, tuberculosis, and HIV; parasitic infectious like schistosomiasis, malaria, and other helminths; sexually transmitted diseases; nutritional issues such as vitamin B12 deficiency, iron deficient anemia, and vitamin D deficiency; and mental health issues stemming from their previous experiences and migration journey. Refugees also need various social barriers to health care in a new host nation. Many will require language interpreters, access to medications, transport assistance, and other needs associated with healthcare but may not directly relate to clinical practice. In short, all clinical, social, and logistical factors need to be considered when providing health services to new arrived refugees.
2. Domestic medical screenings are the first way clinicians can incorporate refugee care into their practice here in the United States. After this, they can aid in clinical care and well being through episodic care or providing primary care for refugees in their community. Providers can aid refugees in social support, too, by incorporating refugee specific care needs into medical education programs, by applying for N-648 exemption from English proficiency for naturalization of refugees who have cognitive inhibitors that would prevent them from learning English, and by aiding those refugees who are applying for asylum through evaluatory screenings.
1. Hashem has faced a plethora of constant mental stress in his European travels. First among them is a chronic and deep anxiety that permeates all that he does. Constantly he lived in fear of being captured and detained by police, of being deported back to Italy, and of being separated from his family for years if he were to be caught. Anxiety and stress can be helpful if we are secure in our person and situation, but Hashem is not, and this chronic anxiety likely led to a swift deterioration in his mental well-being. Another source of psychological stress on his European travels was his lack of physical safety. He had no permanent residence, no assurance of food, no consistent sleep, and at times even had to avoid or flee from the police. Because physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well being are interconnected——each one affecting and being affected by the others——it is no surprise that these situations that threatened his physical well-being also took their toll on Hashem’s mental well-being. Lastly, Hashem also was distanced from his family. Because his journey was at its core something done to benefit his wife and children, the separation from them during this time was likely one of the hardest mental challenges he had to face. This is because not only did Hashem try to support his family and their well being, they supported him and his well being. Being separated from their support likely exacerbated his concern for them and compounded the stress that he was under in trying to get to a place where he and his family could forge a new and better life together. These are profound mental stresses that all took place in Hashem’s 6 days traversing Europe from Italy to Sweden.
2. Hashem’s mental health is on the verge of shambles. His chronic anxiety, multiple traumatic experiences stemming back to his time in Syria when the war began, and the isolation he faced while journeying from Libya to Sweden seemed to have a limited effect on him. This is probably due to the fact that since beginning his journey, he has been in a perpetual state of “fight or flight.” The high level of cortisol and adrenaline in his system probably allowed him to compartmentalize the issues at hand so that he could focus on the task of surviving to get to Sweden. I think that as soon as his body is out of a perpetual state of panic Hashem will have to face the profound realities of what he has experienced and all of the mental toll that they have taken. In essence, arriving in Sweden was the end of his physical journey to safety but the beginning of his mental journey to safety.
1. There are a few acute psychological interventions that stand out as most important and appropriate for refugee populations. The first is the individualized psychotherapies. Cognitive behavioral modification for coping with and mediating PTSD and depression symptoms is a particularly helpful intervention because it teaches refugees to navigate their physiological and mental responses to their traumatic experiences in a way that can help bring stability to their daily life. Learning basic coping mechanisms, breathing techniques, etc. allow refugees to be able to counteract symptoms of their psychiatric disorders whenever they set in, wherever they are. Another form of cognitive behavioral therapy that is appropriate for refugees is a form of narrative exposure therapy that allows refugees to trace their journey, identifying its progression, and even helping reframe the narrative to bring healing. A good example given of this was presented in the video we watched in our previous zoom discussion in which the psychiatrist was able to help the child reframe his journey across the sea in terms of heroism instead of peril. The second appropriate psychological intervention that refugees should be provided with is psychosocial therapy, in which communities and social networks are rebuilt in group settings. The point of these is to build common ground through shared experiences and allow these new social networks to promote well-being in individual’s lives. This sort of group intervention will be especially meaningful for refugees who come from collectivist societies because a reestablished social network will help contribute to overall psychosocial well being, as identified by the ADAPT framework this article provided. Addressing both individual and communal psychosocial well being in refugees is critical to helping them be established citizens in their new host country.
2. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is extended to refugee children and ought to be more rigorously applied to refugee children considering the extreme circumstances refugee children experience. However, there are a number of ways that refugee children are often violated. Under the CRC, refugee children are to be offered education for development and civic preparation (27 and 29), yet often refugee children go months or years without schooling of any kind. Another violation is the right to not be conscripted into armed conflict under the age of 15 (38), yet many refugees in Central Africa are conscripted as child soldiers by state governments and militant groups. One way in which Europe and America has violated the rights of refugee children is in willful bureaucratic separation of families and hindrance of family reunification (21)—Europe in the Syrian refugee crisis, and America in the Central and South American migrant crisis. Because children depend on parents or other caregivers to care for them, it is absolutely critical that world governments commit to no longer violating this right of children. Lastly, one right of refugee children that needs to be improved is access to primary healthcare (24). Refugees (and subsequently, their children) are one of many groups that treat Emergency Departments as their primary healthcare, and this is unsustainable. If we are to adhere to the meaning of this right entitled to refugee children, then we need to begin crafting systems that increase refugee access to a consistent primary care professional, as well as education to navigate healthcare systems in the host country.
1. There is a host of challenges for refugees and migrants that reach Europe. The first is to claim asylum in the correct location. The country you are first documented in is the country you must claim asylum in under the Dublin convention; considering the vast array of policies that countries have adopted for refugees, being documented in one country or another could make the difference between seeing your family within a year or multiple years after you have arrived. This is why Hashem makes an attempt to get to at least Germany, if not Sweden, where immigration laws for refugees and their families are quite favorable. On this journey is where refugees will face a plethora of other challenges. They will be traversing an EU where they have limited or no language skills, leading to confusion or frustration navigating; refugees must also evade police forces that will attempt to send them to where they first landed in Europe to claim asylum (e.g. Italy), undoing all of the hard work that refugees have done to migrate to a place where they can settle with their families safely for an indefinite period of time; and they are confounded or harassed by members of the host population who do not desire to have refugees in their country. More importantly, many refugees arrive in Europe having spent the last of their savings on the journey across the Mediterranean. This financial insecurity means refugees must obtain funds from family members or find creative financing options for their journey across Europe to where they want to permanently settle.
While there are many ways for European nations to accommodate the refugees that enter their borders, the most profound way they could do this is to make an agreement across all EU nations to resettle refugees in equal share, so that border nations do not shoulder more of the economic and bureaucratic burden than nations that are more insulated to refugee migration. This, paired with a loosening of restrictions on reuniting refugees with their families, thus demolishing the rationale to try to claim asylum in one nation instead of another, would be the first steps to unclogging a system that has been overburdened for too long in Europe. The fact is that most refugees fleeing to Europe will be staying long term, and it is necessary that European Union nations would start acknowledging that and acting accordingly.2. Greece receives a high number of migrants from these nations for a variety of reasons. First, the group from Morocco, Bangladesh, and Senegal are economic migrants. They likely choose to migrate through Greece instead of alternative routes because it is a cheaper journey. If they have very little money to begin with, it makes financial sense to travel to Europe this way instead of going through Libya or Egypt and risk being held hostage for a sum of money that they cannot pay. Syrians and Afghans chose to go through Turkey, Greece, and the Balkans in 2015 likely due to restrictions in Algeria and Egypt that made it more difficult or outright illegal for them to travel through the area. Moreover, once a hand full of migrants were able to migrate through Greece into the EU successfully, they documented their journey on social media and made the knowledge of the path accessible to anyone who wanted to resettle in Europe. Ultimately these factors led to the dramatic rise in migration through Greece in 2015. The Greek policy for bystanders that prohibits them from aiding refugees is unjust at the end of the day because the Greek government is trying to keep a pull factor for refugees to enter through Greece. They say that if people help them, then more refugees will come knowing that they will receive help migrating through the islands and the mainland peninsula. There are two issues with this. First, the logic of this argument is experientially untrue in the European refugee crisis. Italy thought that Mare Nostrum was creating an unintentional pull factor, yet when they ended the naval rescue program, there was no difference in the number of refugees that came by boat across the Mediterranean. But not only are they logically ungrounded, this policy is morally ungrounded as well. It is the responsibility of those who can help to help however they can. This policy prevents people from aiding the people most in need and at its core lacks compassion. Ultimately this policy is unwarranted.
1. Refugees are more likely to develop infectious and chronic diseases than host population counterparts. Parasitic infections like schistosomiasis, Chagas disease, and strongyloidiasis have higher incidence rates; chronic viral illnesses like hepatitis B and C, as well as HIV have higher incidence and prevalence; vaccine preventable diseases as well as MRSA and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis present at higher rates in migrant populations. Chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension all have higher prevalence in migrant populations. Multiple comorbidities and disease interactions, paired with an overall lack of the continuity of healthcare in migrant populations due to their transient nature has created an enormous burden of disease and innumerable complexities to providing comprehensive healthcare to refugees and their families.
2. There are multiple ways that health officials and host governments can intervene in refugees’ lives to increase their overall health despite the fact that they have been displaced from their homes. One profound intervention would be to develop clinics along travel routes for refugees. These clinics would offer opportunities for refugees to receive acute care, receive appropriate vaccines, and gain education on caring for children, transmission of disease, etc. These styles of clinics will help lessen the gap in healthcare that refugees experience between leaving their home country and gaining access to healthcare in their destination country. Another important guideline for governing bodies to implement is to care for the mental health of refugees since many refugees experience traumatic events——either events that force them to leave their home nation or events along their journey to a new home. Acknowledging the impact of mental health on refugees and creating structures that will help address these needs will help improve refugee health for the better. Lastly, governments must implement HIV, TB and malaria treatments as medications needed to control these illnesses are often unavailable to refugees. Limiting burden of these diseases on refugees through actively tracking cases and limiting the opportunities for these diseases to spread is absolutely necessary to refugee population health.
1. The Italian navy was not wholly justified nor unjustified in its termination of Mare Nostrum. It was unjust to terminate this rescue effort in the height of the European refugee crisis as they were in essence abandoning people in need when the highest number of them were in need of assistance. Moreover, the termination of this program was justified because it supposedly created a pull factor for refugees to voyage across the Mediterranean. The logic went that if they knew that they would be rescued by the Italian Navy under this program, then more were willing to voyage. But this is far from the truth. Migrants and refugees who fled over the sea did so because it was the option that was least of all their evils. Many refugees and smugglers cared very little whether or not Mare Nostrum existed. Refugees chose this path because it was the most hopeful option even if it came at great risk to their lives. As one refugee stated it, “a dead goat does not fear the butcher.” The termination of the program in this lens was very unjustified because Mare Nostrum did not create a pull factor for refugees. However, the Italians were justified in ending the program because the rest of the EU left them simply to shoulder the workload. Even though they were fiscally supported, much of the financial and bureaucratic burden fell to the Italian government to process and settle the refugees that made the journey. If the EU was sincerely interested in helping refugees that crossed the Mediterranean, other nations in the Union would have stepped up to help bear the other burdens that came with Mare Nostrum.
2. Both NGOs and government rescue operations have various benefits and pitfalls. Government operations are dependent on finances and agendas given to them by the elected officials and they are forced to comply. However, governments tend to have a steady access to resources and personnel that can help accomplish the operations appropriately. NGOs on the other hand, have freedom to determine when, where, and how they help people, but may be constrained by the resources and personnel that they have access to.
1. In designing a refugee camp, the needs of the refugees inform the major factors that will be considered in designing the settlement. Broadly speaking, refugees need a safe area that can accommodate the population (accounting for some growth) with adequate water and sanitation, sustainable farming, and healthcare, along with access to education, vocational training, and commerce centers. One major factor that contributes to all of these is the assumption that refugees will be displaced and remain in these camps for many months or perhaps years, so settlements should be constructed in a way that they can sustain refugee populations for long periods of time. If they are built as transitional places, eventually the temporary qualities of these camps will start to breakdown, leading to a severe drop in the quality of life for refugees. Another major factor to consider is placement of the settlement. If the number of migrants to be housed in the camp is predetermined, then the location will need to large enough to provide adequate space for living quarters, along with allocated portions of land to every other component that should be included to help meet the needs of the refugees. After all, tents, farms, schools, and markets all take up space and must be accounted for. Moreover, in regard to location, access to a water supply is necessary to provide clean water for cooking or drinking, adequate sanitation, and farming. A third significant factor to consider in this process is accessibility. This must be thought of in two directions. First, how accessible is it to get to? In order to build the infrastructure of the camp and provide the personnel necessary to run the camp, its imperative that the camp be easily accessible. What means of transportation are necessary to access it? Can large construction equipment reach the camp? If not, how will supplies be shipped in? All these questions must be considered in designing a refugee settlement. Second, how easy is it to get out of? Many refugees will work in urban centers while they are in these settlements, and in order to do so, will need to travel to their places of work outside the camp. Can they do this on foot? Will they need vehicles or shuttles to get them to their jobs? Can the camp be designed to make it easier for refugees to travel to jobs in nearby cities? All of these must be considered because building camps haphazardly will result in wasted resources, increased frustrations, and poorer outcomes for refugees in the long run.
2. There are advantages and disadvantages to placing refugees in rural or urban centers. Settling refugees in urban centers presents a variety of advantages. Refugees are settled in more permanent structures than tents which is more sustainable for long-term displacement; they have easier access to jobs and markets, to government infrastructure and resources, and to educational opportunities for themselves and their children; and they have water and sanitation, roads, and other infrastructure already integrated into their community. While these are great advantages, there are disadvantages: Often the suburbs or neighborhoods refugees are settled in are in sub-par condition, the infrastructure of the city may be outdated or in disrepair because they are often placed in poor neighborhoods, and refugees may not have skills or education necessary to thrive in an urban setting——after all, many refugees are farmers and shepherds! Their profession necessitates a rural setting to live in, and settling them in urban centers forces them to learn a new profession. Rural settlement has advantages and disadvantages that are complementary to urban settlement. Refugees with agricultural backgrounds will be able to continue to make a living in the area, building a new settlement with a refugee-driven process allows the refugees to establish a sense of community and home, and often the rural encampments generate markets and trade that become economically significant to the community’s wellbeing. However, resources for infrastructure must be shipped in and built with trained labor, people needed for healthcare, education, and government administration must be brought in, and often access to urban economic opportunities is limited. Most importantly, rural refugee encampments often are comprised of impermanent shelters that refugees will live in with their families for months or even years. This creates various threats to personal safety (e.g., indoor fires, sanitation issues) and a sense of being in limbo, not having a home. Ultimately, we need to recognize that refugees are not cookie-cutter, and there is a need for both rural and urban settlements. Accordingly, refugees should be placed in urban or rural settings depending on the refugee’s background, skills, needs, and training rather than just randomly distributed. Thoughtfulness on the part of host countries is what will ultimately help refugees most.
1. Trafficking and smuggling in North Africa are encouraged by a variety of factors. First is a lack of stability in the region creates a push factor for people who enter the region. Destabilized governments, militant groups, and general lack of political cohesion in Libya, Egypt, and other countries create areas for refugees that are only marginally more stable than the countries that they flee from. As a result, the deteriorating infrastructure forces individuals to turn to other means of income outside their normal professions, and many turn to the smuggling trade as a source of steady income. Second, there is a ready need. Tens of thousands of refugees pour into North Africa each year to try to migrate to Europe. The simple fact is that these refugees then need a way to migrate across the Mediterranean into Europe. Due to the closed-border policies of Europe and difficulty in North African countries for refugees to find legal transport to the European continent, refugees must turn to illegal means. It comes down to the simple demand for migration methods across the sea. Last, despite the enormous risk posed to those who are smuggled through North Africa, the places they flee from are simply worse off than any risk that is posed to them in the course of their search for freedom. In many ways, staying in their home state means suffering more than any amount of suffering they could endure on their way to Europe. The sentiment is simple: Dying on the way to Europe is better than living here.
2. It was a series of compounding restrictions of the rights of undocumented Syrians that the Egyptian bureaucracy contributed to that ultimately led Hashem to flee from Egypt to Europe. First, in the July 2013, Egypt made it illegal for undocumented Syrians to enter and move within the country. This came in the midst of the protests against president Morsi, and the change in policy paired with political upheaval restored power to the security police, who would harass Syrians in Egypt under the guise of national security. Hashem was one of many targets of this police treatment. Further policy prevented Syrians from working, obtaining proper papers, or even moving freely within the country. The resulting political turmoil, targeting against Syrian refugees, and the financial hardships that ensued for Hashem and his family are what drove them to seek a life outside of Egypt. While the UNHCR offered a program for resettling in America, this turned out to be in name only; as a result the only viable option to escape to the West to reestablish their lives was being smuggled to Europe through the Mediterranean.
1. It is the responsibility of States to protect the rights of refugees because they are often those who have very little or nothing left. However, protecting refugee rights is often used as a guise for nations to hide less-than-moral actions under, utilizing refugee crises as an opportunity for gain. One instance of refugees being taken advantage of for national financial gain was by the Jordanian government at the beginning of the Syrian refugee crisis in late 2012 and early 2013. The Jordanian border crossings would unofficially encourage Syrians with and without passports to enter the country along illegal routes so that all Syrians would immediately qualify as refugee status under a previously signed treaty between the UNHCR and the Jordanian. This accomplished two purposes: 1) the Jordanian government could inflate the number of Syrian refugees entering their country because no one was conducting an official census; and 2) it meant every Syrian that entered Jordan was another reason for the Jordanian government to receive funds from the UN and other states to help support the refugee population. This amounts to little more than dishonesty and “padding the numbers” so to speak; however, disrupting the lives of those fleeing from the conflict in Syria even further in order to profit financially is still immoral. Jordan is not the only party who has sprung at the opportunity to utilize the Syrian crisis to gain advantage for their nation. Turkey, housing the most displaced Syrians than any other nation, used the refugees as leverage for geopolitical gain in the EU. The Turkish government petitioned the EU in 2016 in order to receive 6 million euros in support for the Syrian refugees they were housing. Attached to the agreement was the stipulation that Turkish citizens would no longer need visas to enter EU nations, which would mark a major shift in Tukey-EU relations and give greater financial and political sway to Turkey within the EU. This deal was eventually agreed upon because of the implicit threat that Turkey would release millions of Syrian refugees into European territory if no deal was agreed upon. Turkey used millions of Syrian refugees as blackmail into financial and political gain. This too is inexcusable. Moving forward, it is imperative that states shift away from looking for national gain in the midst of refugee crises and focus on fulfilling protecting refugee rights while actively working toward resolution and repatriation of refugees. But this good will is hardly among mankind, so an arbitrator is likely needed to make sure governments seek the rights of refugees properly. The UN or unbiased third-party nations would be great options to make sure that refugees are cared for properly by their host nations while ensuring the host nation does not foot the entire cost themselves.
2. One key factor that contributed significantly to the 2015 European refugee crisis is the rise of mobile cell phones and social media. Access to cell phones and social media has increased throughout the world, including in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nigeria. As a result, people who are planning to flee now have access to information on how to migrate efficiently and effectively almost anywhere in the world. Now virtually anyone with an internet connection can procure the exact information they will need and perhaps even be able to connect with smuggling networks and family members that will help get them to where they want to go. While this is certainly not the only factor that led to the migration crisis, the fact that now more people than ever have access to the information and resources necessary to migrate made migration more feasible than ever before in human history. Closing borders to refugee migration ultimately accomplishes nothing. If one country closes their borders, it will simply reroute refugees to other neighboring nations or through unofficial entry points into the country. While this seems innocuous, it is harmful because refusing entry to refugees is a profound violation of fundamental rights extended to all people. It puts refugees in further suspense about their future and takes away what little they are entitled to. It is imperative that we do not do this——it is the moral and ethical responsibility of those who have much to care for those who have little. Nations who have peace and geopolitical stability are obligated to tend to the needs of those whose home states do not provide them peace, safety, and stability.
1. The 1951 UNHCR Convention on Refugees and the 1967 Protocol that applies the Convention’s rights to all refugees (not just WWII-era refugees) are critical documents because they grant international rights to people who have abandoned the State that traditionally would bestow and apply these rights to their citizens. Essentially these documents make sure human rights continue when the State itself disintegrates or when the social contract falls apart. It asks and answers “How should we treat others?” Each of the rights enumerated by the articles are critical to the welfare of refugees during their time as refugees; as citizens of nations that have signed onto these documents, we have an obligation to help apply these rights as fully as we can to the people who flee to our nations for safety. In the current refugee crisis the world is facing, I believe one of these rights stands out as most important: The right for refugees to be issued identity and travel documents. Though it seems small, this right holds incredible weight in the life of a refugee. This is the case because we all live in societies where our existence, our statehood, our access to public services, our ability to get an education, and thousands of other rights all depend on us having identifying documents. It sounds almost ludicrous out loud and yet is entirely true when we examine it: the fabric of society is woven around paperwork. It is particularly powerful for refugees to be given a right to have identity and travel papers issued to them by a nation that is not their own because that means that they will not lose access to society because they are refugees. It ensures that refugees will have the ability to prove that they are who they say they are and have the appropriate means to access all of their rights. Especially in our day where in the midst of conflicts or persecution, travel and identifying documents belonging to victims are either stolen, confiscated, or destroyed, I think this right should hold a special place for the nations who are receiving and caring for refugees.
2. While politics, wars, government agencies, and walls all contribute to insufficient application of the 1951 Convention rights, the most powerful factors that prevent their application are immaterial personal dispositions that individuals have toward refugees. First, individuals lack compassion for refugees, or even withhold it from them inside their hearts. When individuals do this, they can shirk responsibility to care for these people in need, they can endorse policies that strip them of their rights, and they can keep on minding their own business without having too troubled of a conscience. Most people are willing to numb themselves to their sense of compassion because it is difficult to take care of the needs of other people, and it is a sacrifice to take the time and resources to do so. By numbing themselves, people can keep all that they have earned for themselves and not need to feel uncomfortable. Second, people will then find anonymity in group inaction. Because so many people refuse to do the difficult thing and take care of the people that most need it, groupthink takes over and the individuals who are a part of the group that don’t take action lose the sense of personal responsibility. In essence, they can’t be blamed because everyone else is doing nothing too. These psychological and personal dispositions are the basis of the politics that result in refugees being denied their rights. And the solution is simple: If we are able to be compassionate, to stop numbing ourselves and let the sympathy we have for those who are suffering motivate us to take action, then suddenly everyone would be personally contending for governments to provide what they have agreed to provide for refugees. People would go out of their way to help those who need it most. We simply need more compassion.
1. There are many dangers that migrants have to face while traversing North Africa. First is the geography itself: The ever-shifting dunes of the Sahara pose an enormous risk of being lost in the desert, resulting in death by dehydration. Smugglers will get lost due to a lack of experience or an unforeseen circumstance, resulting in the demise of everyone on the journey. But these sands are not the only obstacle to crossing the Sahara to the North African coast. The threat of capture, extortion, ransom, kidnapping, deportment, and death are all possibilities for migrants that cross the Saharan. Smugglers, militant islamic groups, and corrupt government or police agencies all will use these tactics to benefit themselves financially by taking advantage of those who are most in need.
2. Several push factors force people to take flight through the Sahara and across the Mediterranean Sea. Conflicts like the ones in Syria, Sudan, and Afghanistan force people from their homes to seek a better life in other nations. Tyrannical regimes like that of Eritrea because people have their basic rights confiscated by the government encourage them to flee to other countries. Religious persecutions like that of which the Yazidis and Rohingyas have endured cause even more to flee. These, alongside political persecution, statelessness, or economic depravity all are reasons that people have chosen to endure the hardships of the journey from Central Africa or Central Asia to Europe. They ultimately choose to do so because in their minds, dying on the way to Europe is a better option than the life that they can have for themselves and their families in their own country.
1. Hashem’s flight from Syria was driven by many factors. He and his family faced a lack of personal safety. He was imprisoned and tortured for six months without cause, his home was destroyed, and his children were nearly killed by mortar fire all within a calendar year. The lack of this personal safety was driven by an increase in sectarianism pervading the civil war. Both the Assad regime and Free Syrian Army were becoming increasingly more concerned with religious differences and less with the Syrian government. Bashsar al-Assad wanted to impose Shia rule, and was backed by Hezbollah and, therefore by proxy, Iran; the Free Syrian Army was primarily Sunni, and radical Sunni militant groups were interested in supporting them to impose their influence on Syria. This extremism made neutrality treacherous in view of both sides of the conflict, creating an increasingly dangerous situation for most citizens. The collapse of infrastructure during war time also meant that Hashem could not work, his children could not go to school, and their future became increasingly bleak with each passing day. As more countries in the region closed their borders or imposed limitations on Syrian refugees, Hashem was forced to flee to Egypt ultimately.
2. The impact on Hashem and his family was pervasive. He and his wife had no source of income, leaving them to survive on whatever they had saved; his sons could no longer attend school, which is a major disruption to their lives; their house was destroyed, leaving them very little personal property; and worst of all, they all had to part with the life they had always known and country that they called their own. Hashem and his family were entirely uprooted. Conversely, he and his family leaving had a profound impact on Hashem’s extended family: two of his brothers had died when the conflict came to their home town, and when he left, Hashem’s parents lost the only person that could care for them. Displacement from conflict and persecution has impact on everyone involved.