About the European Refugee Politics

Well, the asylum regime in Europe has changed over the last decades. One can say that it has changed from an uncoordinated liberalism to a harmonised restrictionism. The European countries have been working together to increase a control of their borders, to harmonise policies that restricts asylum seekers to enter Europe through international agreements.
Throughout the 80s and 90s there have been restrictions in the asylum politics to reduce the number of asylum seekers and refugees from entering the host countries. This have happened both on a national and international level, and a sense of inclusion and exclusion has arisen. For example, there has been an introduction of transit and visitor’s visas, carries sanctions and airport international zones (with the first country of asylum rule). In 1990 the Dublin Convention was released, which limited the possibility of applying for asylum in the EU to one country. The procedures that grants asylum has been shortened, phrases like “countries with no serious risk of persecution” has been mounted. There has also been a change in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention, which has led to a demand of “higher standards of proof of persecution” (Joly, 343). This means that a lot of refugees are not processed under Geneva Convention, but instead gain lesser statuses. For example, the new status of ‘Temporary Protection’ has been implemented, which “negates with the premise of Geneva Convention” (Joly, 344).
There has also been a change towards non-integration of the refugee. The demands of host countries to “homogenise groups in order to make them fit into a unified national character” (Warner, 257) while prohibiting them of having the space in the community where they can express their culture, has led to an exclusion of the refugee in society. He/she has come to be viewed as the “other”, who is placed outside the nation-state. The policy shift towards temporary protection has made the refugee stateless, and therefore unprotected; which also means not having to conform. This has led to an absence of programmes for integration. Because when the aim is for the refugee to be returning home, what is really the point of integrating him/her into the host society? This is really a disempowerment of refugees and it increases xenophobia and racism in society. The politicians and the media help with spreading the negative image of the refugee; that the refugee is a problem that needs to be solved. He/she has come to represent a failure of the state. According to Dillon, this exclusion of refugees is a form of violence from the state. Because, he claims that “the violence is included in the very act of defining those who are inside and those who are outside” (Warner, 261). In order to solve these problems, there has to be a change in the discourse. The negative projections, the generalisations, stereotyping and the distrust of the refugee are dangerous. The victim should under no circumstances be blamed.
Also, the conditions of reception have gotten worse since countries are trying not to attract asylum seekers. For example, there has been a limitation of freedom of movement, reduced welfare benefits and also more limited rights to education and work. Somewhat due to discrimination, but somewhat also due to the fact that immigrants are segregated in their host societies. The immigrant often ends up in communities with less resources put on education and therefore less opportunities for continued education and therefore also less opportunity for work. But even if one would manage to gain a university degree, one would risk getting discriminated against.
When former Yugoslavia experienced a major crisis, a new approach to refugee policy took shape. A comprehensive approach which dealt with early warnings, pre-emptive actions and “focusing on the root causes of refugee movements” (Joly, 351) were thought to be an answer to the refugee crisis. There was a focus on assisting the return of refugees, both with good return programmes and help with rebuilding the country of origin. Encouragements and incentives for the refugee to return home called ‘safe guards’ was a part of this return programme, which meant that the refugee have a “legal rights to return to the host country for a six-month period”. And there was a support of voluntary return. There was also a focus on re-integration in the country of origin.
The increase in mobility of people and the globalisation has led to a change in the refugee policy towards Inter-governmental agreements. For example, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen Agreement, the Geneva Convention, the Dublin Convention and other Conclusions and Resolutions. It is positive, that governments take decisions together to share the responsibility of refugees, and that they are trying to cooperate internationally. But there seem to be a selection in the harmonisation of the policies. Some of these inter-governmental conclusions are unlike the Geneva Convention not binding, but are implemented in the legislation of the different countries. Lack of harmonisation is especially visible when it comes to reception and settlement. Also, a lot of NGO’s has entered the debate. So one can today see a certain amount of tensions between the liberal views on the refugee policy where the human rights issues weigh in, and the countries “who want to restrict asylum and integration” (Joly, 354).
Actually, recently EU released the ‘Haagprogramme’, which shows how it is going to deal with questions regarding border control issues, police coorperation, asylum and migration issues. They are introducing the same asylum application process in all countries, and there will also be a possibility to apply for asylum from the country of origin. Also, there will be a stronger focus on stopping human trafficking. But I don’t think this will solve the problem. The aim is to fucos on getting fewer asylum applicants. And this is another clear example on further exclusion of “the other”, due to an enhanced inclusion os ‘us’. The same goes for the asylum reception centres, that are suggested to be placed in ‘safe third countries’, which in fact they are not. The safety of the refugee cannot be guaranteed. And this; I think is a dangerous evolvement of the common EU refugee policy. This means that the EU think it is more important to exclude the rest of the world than considering the human rights aspect in this issue.
For the refugee, the state is both the root cause of flight and the solution for protection. States who are forcing citizens to flea are letting other states down and are forcing them to take responsibility for their own citizens. One solution would be that no one violated the human rights, then no more refugees would be created. And the root causes of the refugee flows need to be examined and prevented if possible. States also need to take responsibility and fulfil their obligations to guarantee protection of refugee. And the problems with resettlement/repatriation need even more attention. A return to unsafe countries should be out of the question. Enhancement in the protection of the refugee must be taken into consideration. The refugee should not be standing outside the responsibility of the state. The “de-territoralisation of the trinity, the inherent violence of the state, and the incapacity of all states to fulfil their human rights obligations” (Warner, 265) has lead to an exclusion of the refugee in society.

Works Cited

Grete Brochmann and Tomas Hammar. Mechanisms of Immigration Control. Berg publishers. Oxford-New York, 1999.
Geddes, Andrew. The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. Sage, London, 2003.
Eriksson, Peter. “Sätt fart på Integrationen” in Sydsvenska Dagbladet. Nov 3, 2004.
Karl Vicktor Olsson and Lars Larsson. “EU Slopar Veto i Asylfrågor” in Sydsvenska Dagbladet. Nov 7, 2004.
Aleinikoff, Alexander T. ”State Centered refugee Law : From Resettlement to Containment” in MistrustingRefugees. Berkely, University of California Press. 1995.
Wrench John, Rea Andrea, Ouali Nouria. Migrants, Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market: Integration and Exclusion in Europe.
Soininen, M. “Refugee Care in Sweden: The problems of Unemployment anti-discrimination Policies” in J. Wrench, A. Rea & N. Ouali. Migrants and the Labour market, Integration and Exclusion in Europe. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Pp 195-216.
Bevelander, Pieter. “Getting Foothold, Male Immigrant Employment Integration and Structural Change in Sweden, 1970-1995” in Journal of International Migration and Integration. Fall 2001.
M Cross and R Waldinger. “Economic Integration and Labour Market Change” in J. Hjarnö From Metropolis to Cosmopolis. Papers, Migration no 30. Danish Centre for Migration and Ethnic Studies. Esbjerg, South Jutland University Press. Pp 30-93.
Mitzi Gras and Frank Bovenkerk. “Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands”: Discrimination in Access to Employment.
Gustafson, Per. “Globalisation, Multiculturalism and Individualism”: the Swedish Debate on Dual Citizenship. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 28, No. 3: 463-481, 2002.
Ralph Rotte and Peter Stein. “Migration Policy and the Economy”: International Experiences, 2002.
Warner, Daniel. “The Refugee State and State Protection”.
Think Tank: “Immigration and Integration Policies in Denmark and Selected Countries”: The Think Tank on Integration in Denmark. Ministry of Refugee, immigration and Integration Affairs. Feb, 2004. http://www.inm.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=102&n=1&d=2392&s=5
Notes from Lectures.
Joly, Daniele. ”A New Asylum Regime in Europé”, in Refugee Rights and Realities: Evolving International Concepts and Regimes. Cambridge University Press. 1999.