Suchergebnisse

« Seeking to understand why host states treat migrants and refugees inclusively, exclusively, or without any direct engagement, Kelsey P. Norman offers this original, comparative analysis of the politics of asylum seeking and migration in the Middle East and North Africa. While current classifications of migrant and refugee engagement in the Global South mistake the absence of formal policy and law for neglect, Reluctant Reception proposes the concept of 'strategic indifference', where states proclaim to be indifferent toward migrants and refugees, thereby inviting international organizations and local NGOs to step in and provide services on the state's behalf. Using the cases of Egypt, Morocco and Turkey to develop her theory of 'strategic indifference', Norman demonstrates how, by allowing migrants and refugees to integrate locally into large informal economies, and by allowing organizations to provide basic services, host countries receive international credibility while only exerting minimal state resources. « (Verlagsbeschreibung)

Abstract
State capacity is seen as one of the central elements determining whether countries have "strong" or "weak" systems of immigration and asylum. An underlying assumption of the global refugee regime is that countries of the Global South—thought to have less state capacity—do not have the ability to respond and host asylum seekers and refugees and must be financially supported by countries of the Global North in order to do so. But how can we understand "strong" migration responses from an otherwise "weak" state, as well as responses that change over time without corresponding alterations to underlying state capacity? This paper analyzes the case of Egypt, which, over the course of a decade, alternated between three types of migration policies requiring a range of state resources. Drawing on more than 70 in-person interviews and an analysis of public documents, this paper presents a theory of selective state capacity and argues that infrastructural weakness does not imply a lack of strategic decision-making in the field of migration, or an unwillingness to expend state resources, when the political incentives are in place.

This article examines the 2013 migration policy liberalizations in Morocco and Turkey in order to understand whether predominantly "human rights-centric" or "diplomatic" factors influenced domestic decisions to reform migration policies. It uses original interview data collected in 2015, as well as policy documents, to examine the two reform processes and their initial consequences for migrants and refugees residing in each host state. While the academic literature on migration has focused on human rights-centric factors to understand historic migration policy reforms, Turkey and Morocco's geopolitical and geographic positions between powerful neighbors to the north and important sending countries to the south mean that diplomatic factors are also key to understanding the incentives behind reform. This article's findings have important implications for scholars of international migration, demonstrating that while countries like Morocco and Turkey may implement liberal and inclusive policies if there are diplomatic and economic gains to be had from doing so, such policies may have little impact on the everyday lives of individual migrants and refugees residing in these states and may be subject to reversals if such states' geopolitical calculations change.

Abstract
Beginning in the 1990s, Morocco increasingly became a de facto host country for sub-Saharan migrants and asylum seekers originally intending to reach Europe. While the government's treatment toward these groups was characterized by informality and violence throughout the early 2000s, Morocco embarked on a reform process in 2013 that included a regularization process for irregular migrants. During the regularization process, the Moroccan government automatically granted all women applicants residency status due to their presumed 'vulnerability'. This paper asks: What are the implications of assuming that women are 'inherently vulnerable'? Drawing on in-person interviews and an analysis of policy documents, this article adds to the gendered migration and refugee literature by demonstrating that supposedly humanitarian policies toward women can also victimize them, stereotype male migrants and refugees as threatening, and strengthen the patriarchal role of the state and its ability to carry out violence in the name of protection.