Search results

The post Human Rights in Migration Societies appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

This week we're looking at migration. What causes it? What are its effects? And what are the key policy implications?

The post Labour Migration in the European Union appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

The post Migration and Asylum Policy Systems appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

Peter Heather — However you line up the different factors involved, there's no doubt that immigration played a major role in the unraveling of the western half of the Roman... READ MORE
The post Migration and the End of Empire appeared first on Yale University Press.

The governance of migration, in particular of asylum migration, is caught in the contrast between the political relevance of numbers, and the individuum-based structure of the law. For politics, it matters how many persons arrive, require shelter, enter procedures. For the legal assessment, however, numbers mostly do not matter: The right not to be rejected at the border, the right to access an asylum procedure and to shelter during that procedure are individual rights that are independent from the overall number of arrivals. This contrast is visible in periodical debates about a maximum number of asylum seekers per year, or proposals to abolish the individual right to protection altogether. Such proposals disregard that individual rights to protection are enshrined not just in constitutional law, but also in European and international law, and for good reason. However, it is worth taking the perspective of numbers seriously – while respecting the individual right to protection.

Jack Twyman is an intern at the ASI.Take a look at any national newspaper and, as an alien from outer space, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the United Kingdom was under siege by an aggressive foe. Constant news headlines decry the government to "Send in the army to halt migrant invasion", adding "Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants". The Express is desperate saying "We can't stop migrant chaos", and that "Migrants take all new jobs in Britain."It comes as no surprise to say that is not remotely the case. In 2022, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) recorded the highest ever net migration to the UK at 606,000 people. The ONS also recorded the 45,746 people who arrived illegally. Of those, 25,119 would be allowed to stay in the UK as refugees. Accounting for this, illegal arrivals accounted for just under 8 per cent of the total of net migration. In 2023, as of 13th June,  there have been 9,062 illegal arrivals so far.  So what is leading the current UK government to assert that passing one of its five main targets is to pass new laws to stop small boats, and ensuring the swift detainment and removal of illegal entrants? Looking at opinion polls, the picture distorts further. An IPOS UK poll from March 2023 found that only 19 per cent of the public have passing new l was to stop small boats crossings as one of their top four priorities. Easing the cost of living, 67 per cent, reducing NHS waiting lists, 50 per cent, growing the economy, 36 per cent, halving inflation, 31 per cent, all out pace in importance for the public. Additionally, a Poll by the Law Society of England and Wales of 1,954 people in March 2022 found that almost two thirds of people said refugees who arrive in the UK illegally should have the same rights as those who come legally. However, it is still clear that a great deal of voters care deeply about the issue. Since government rhetoric has increased, and the Rwanda policy became more likely, trust in the Conservatives on asylum and immigration increased to 1 in 3 in March, up since February. POLITICO found that among 2019 Tory voters, 41 per cent see illegal migration routes are a priority. 'Why are my hard-earned taxes, in a time of rising inflation and economic uncertainty, being used to put migrants up in 4 star hotels?' voters argue. Rishi Sunak is so convinced that he claimed "stopping the boats is not just my priority, it's the people's priority." The government of course has the resources and funds available to continue allocating efforts into sustaining the refugees, but the impasse of claim processing has exacerbated the issue further. Data from The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford shows that decisions had already failed to keep pace with applications before the huge increase in claims in 2021 and 2022. This gap has only widened further, with outstanding cases awaiting final decision at the end of 2022 at 132,000 asylum applications.So there is a real issue is in processing, where slow rates have created a backlog that has created a situation where asylum processing centres are overwhelmed and overfilled. The government now spends on average £4,300 per asylum seeker per month in private-provided housing for refugees, equivalent to a £6.2m daily cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels. Last year, the UK spent £3.7 billion, or 29% of its aid budget, supporting refugees within the UK, drawing criticism from aid groups, international NGOs and domestic politicians alike. Surely there must be a better way? The obvious choice would be to train more civil servants to process the claims, but this is costly, currently inefficient, and would be a lengthy process. I propose that we procure private firms as processors, paying them per asylum claim processed. This outsourcing and privatisation will create a healthier competition and increase diligence and duty of care as the claim assessor stands to lose more than if they were in a non-commercial, government position. It will also avoid the currently concerning plans to house refugees in former military bases and so-called "rudimentary accommodation" in the words of Immigration Minister Rober Jenrick. Private firms are proven to respond quicker to market demands, and there will surely be a host of providers created overnight if this scheme was put forward. But there is still more to be done. We must ask ourselves the question why we currently prohibit asylum seekers from working whilst their claim is being processed? In an era of high job vacancies, should these migrants not be seen as an opportunity, or gift for the country? A proactive approach would see these migrants start contributing from the offset, giving the government the opportunity to recuperate some of the funds used to support them, and allowing the migrants to bring benefit to the economy. I would also propose allowing asylum seeker applications to be made in embassies abroad. Sure, there are foreseeable issues with this proposal in countries where there are a high number of prospective applications, but allowing application in France or other similar countries will prevent the need to dagerous journeys to be made overseas, and the subsequent strain on the emergency services responding the the dire humanitarian results. I am not alone in this proposal as in fact 68 per cent respondents for an Ipsos  poll of the UK public support this proposal. Ultimately, I am sureI align with the vast majority of my fellow countryfolk in not sharing Jenrick's belief  that Asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats "cannibalise" communities.  Certainly he is correct that the continued uncontrolled situation threatens "the compassion that marks out the British people." Yet claiming that the protestors outside migrant hotels are a "warning to be heeded, not a phenomenon to be managed" is at best a reach. The Daily Express Editor Gary Jones recently claimed that after concerted effort by Stop Funding Hate was a signficiant factor in rethinking editorial direction around sensitive topics like the Channel migrants. This serves as a reminder how the public can exercise non-political rights to enact change and achieve a voice irrespective on whether elected representatives are in agreement. Sure, the UK is in danger of neglecting necessary action on the issue, however this is not equivalent with a mutli-million pound deal to ship arrivals to Rwanda and elsewhere, nor pay huge sums to house migrants in hotels, or former military bases. With a pragmatic approach that reaches out of government and into enterprise the situation can be more effectively dealt with, and far faster that without. Election ploy or not, securing the stability of UK society must be a priority.

The package to show Europe is in control of irregular arrivals is a triumph of performance over policy.

This study explores the attitudes of those who were refugees in the past towards refugees in the present. Are these people more sympathetic or hostile to subsequent waves of migrants? This article will guide you through this question, briefly overviewing the historical context, the conceptual and the methodological tools, and the main findings of this … Continued

Irregular migration in the European Union (EU) dominates the current EU political agenda. It is also the top concern of European citizens, according to the latest Standard Eurobarometer (Spring 2019). EU member states, however, are not affected to the same degree, resulting in political friction with regard to how to deal with the challenges of […]
The post EU Integration and Policy (In)coherence towards Irregular Migration appeared first on Irregular Migration.

In 2019, Panama released a study showing it had registered a staggering 4,060 domestic NGOs since 2000. This surge in NGOs is closely related to the intensity of the ongoing Central American migration crisis. For more than a decade, Gabriela Valencia has been championing the service and invaluable contributions of these local NGOs in addressing critical … Continued

The World Development Report is one of the flagship annual reports for the World Bank: for 2023, the theme is “Migrants, Refugees, and Societies.” The report defies a simple summary, but here are a few key points. The World Bank defines “migrants” as those who are living outside the country of their nationality: thus, someone … Continue reading Some Economics of Global Migration: WDR ’23
The post Some Economics of Global Migration: WDR '23 first appeared on Conversable Economist.

Forced migration–the movement of people for reasons beyond their control–has become a global crisis. According to both the UNHCR and the Norwegian Refugee Council, over 100 million people were displaced by the end of 2022, a 19 million increase over 2021. There are two sides to this crisis. One is the push factors: the conditions […]

It's time for a Gestalt shift from curbing 'irregular' migration to pursuing integration for mutual benefit.

2023 was, to put it mildly, a terrible year for (im)migrants and their human rights. With the declared end of the Covid pandemic came an end to the exceptional border policies it had led to which had further restricted already weakened migrants' rights. Yet governments have largely chosen to replace them with legal frameworks that incorporated many of the same rights negating policies and ideas- except for this time they put them on a permanent legal basis. Liberated from their initial emergency rationales, asylum bans have now joined outsourcing and overpopulated mass detention camps as standard methods of migration governance. What is the role of legal scholarship and discourse at a time where governments seem increasingly comfortable to eschew many long-standing legal rules and norms, often with majority support?