Suchergebnisse

This research investigates the interaction between the effects of wording and other elements of framing on public attitudes toward asylum policies. In particular, we focus on the labels of asylum-seekers and the discourse about the recent refugee crisis in Europe. In 2015 and 2016, we conducted two survey-experiments in Hungary where mass migration was the major issue on the political agenda at the time of the surveys. The salience of the issue was manipulated in both studies. Earlier findings have indicated that even words with the same meaning could prompt different interpretations in specific contexts. In contrast, we show that even large effects of wording, even if they are driven by differential meaning, can be suppressed by other elements of framing. The paper with the scientific results of this collection are currently under anonymous review. After the review process, the author of this collection will be revealed.

This study asks whether framing asylum seekers in Israel as "infiltrators" posing threats to the country amplifies exclusion toward them. The term "infiltrators" associates asylum seekers with the anti-infiltration law passed in the 1950s to fight terrorists and dissociates asylum seekers from their unique position as holders of special rights. The term "infiltrators" may thus influence the attitudes of the Israeli public regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. Findings demonstrate that respondents presented with the "infiltrators" frame were more likely to show exclusionary attitudes. Findings additionally show that the framing effect mediates the relation between perceived socioeconomic threat and exclusion.

The removal of a person's liberty by detaining them in the prison system is one of the most coercive powers that the state can exercise over a human being. Over the centuries the common law has prescribed certain limitations on the state's powers to do so. In addition, under international human rights law there are certain human rights standards which the Australian government has agreed to uphold, by virtue of having signed and ratified particular human rights conventions.

The removal of a person's liberty by detaining them in the prison system is one of the most coercive powers that the state can exercise over a human being. Over the centuries the common law has prescribed certain limitations on the state's powers to do so. In addition, under international human rights law there are certain human rights standards which the Australian government has agreed to uphold, by virtue of having signed and ratified particular human rights conventions.

The tragedies of Cornelia Rau & Vivian Alvarez Solon precipitated dramatic changes in Australia's response to asylum seekers who arrived by boat. Most of the remnant asylum seekers detained in Australia have been released. The Pacific Solution is all but obsolete. The importance of asylum seekers as a political issue has declined. Yet while the asylum seekers who arrived by boat between 1999 & late 2001 became central to Australian political discourse, there is another group of asylum seekers for whom Australia's response has been more muted but hardly more liberal. Adapted from the source document.

Shortfalls in funding and recruitment seen as key barriers to delivering asylum safeguarding strategy

Mexico ratified the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol in April 2000. While Regulations establishing a mechanism for eligibility determination were issued at the same time, the Mexican government began a transitional process to take over eligibility in March 2002. Prior to that time, the UNHCR had been recognizing refugees under its mandate. As of this writing no national policy regarding the detention of asylum seekers has been established, nor have refugee advocates begun to pressure the government to comply with Article 31 of the Convention. Rather, whether an asylum seeker is detained during the eligibility process depends in part on the place and timing of the request as well as on the knowledge and goodwill of the migration authority. ; Le Mexique a ratifié la Convention des Nations Unies relative au statut des réfugiés et le Protocole de 1967 au mois d'avril 2000. Alors que des règlements établissant un mécanisme pour déterminer l'admissibilité ont été émis au même moment, le gouvernement mexicain a mis en place un processus transitionnel visant à prendre en charge l'admissibilité en mars 2002. Jusqu'à cette date, c'était la HCR qui, comme partie de son mandat, s'occupait de la reconnaissance du statut de réfugié. À l'heure de la rédaction du présent article, une politique nationale de détention des réfugiés n'avait pas encore été établie, et les défenseurs des réfugiés n'avaient pas non plus commencé à faire pression sur le gouvernement pour qu'il se conforme à l'article 31 de la Convention. Au contraire, qu'un réfugié soit détenu ou non durant le processus d'admissibilité dépend en partie du lieu et de l'heure de la demande, aussi bien que du niveau de connaissance et de la bonne volonté de l'agent de l'immigration.