The Refugee Crisis With A Durable And Sustainable Burden Sharing Mechanism

Saul’s article recognizes that the Syrian refugee crisis exists amidst citizen sponsorship, Aboriginal judgement, and disorder within EU countries’ immigrant policies. According to Saul, democracy in Canadian politics grants citizenship to immigrants without any obstacles. Canada’s immigration policies are transparent because they are balanced with civic participation. Saul thinks that multiculturalism is a forceful catalyst towards establishing equality and integrity for the refugees. In the first point, Saul does not agree that refugees should be privately sponsored and assisted by the government. In the second point, Saul indicates that Canada’s national identity is the product of the encounter between the Aboriginals and European settlers, which has resulted in citizenship. By entering the Inuit circle, immigrants can establish themselves as a strong unit not by having roots outside Canada, but by living with Canadian intellect. The immigrants should mold to nature because this is the way the Aboriginals have defined their understandings of life. As Sifton has noted, “the … government … made presentations … to potential immigrants, presenting beautiful images of the Rocky Mountains and thriving settled farmland” (475). In the last point, Saul comments on the European prejudices that are

In the final draft I will expand on each of the issues, by looking into more specific examples of both what different European countries are doing policy wise, as well as what the sentiment is among the refugees in the different areas of Europe. To fully be able to understand the conditions the refugees are facing I will be using other scholars ethnography work; One of those works being Katerina Rozakou’s piece regarding the management of refugees in Greece. As a result of that knowledge I will be able to come to an accurate conclusion as to what course of action should be taken in Europe as a whole, to deal with this ongoing

In the attempts to “manage the immigrant crisis” several strategic mistakes have been made, which have shaken the functioning of migration policy in the European community. Particular controversy was stirred up by a plan for the relocation of 120,000 refugees suggested in September 2015. Some months later (April/May 2016), the European Commission came up with the idea of fines for those countries which would not receive the relocated refugees. The fine for one unaccepted foreigner was supposed to be €250,000. The attempt to impose a quota of immigrants on member countries together with high fines contributed to further divisions inside the EU.

A current issue on the minds and agendas of the international community is the Syrian Refugee Crisis. The situation has only escalated since its start in 2011, and as the number of displaced Syrians reaches over 9 million, countries around the world, not just the ones in the Middle East, are increasing efforts to offer asylum and aid for these people. The Syrian Refugee Crisis began with peaceful anti-government protests in March of 2011, but after the violent response of the government, rebels, army defectors, and many civilians formed the Free Syrian Army by July of the same year (Mercy Corps, Sept 2nd, 2015). The presence of ISIS within Syria and the differing views of religious groups (namely Sunni and Shiite) in the country only add to the chaos of destruction of the country and the Syrian people’s lives and homes. With the constant state of war within the country, basic necessities like food, water, and shelter have become scarce and Syrian people are looking to find new homes of stability and safety. The large majority of Syrians have fled to the neighboring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey. However the burden of harboring these refugees has put huge stress on the countries as the sheer number of people entering the country becomes too much to handle. Today one in five people living in Lebanon is a Syrian refugee (Mercy Corps, Sept 2nd, 2015). With the neighboring countries already beyond capacity, Syrians are looking for shelter in places outside this

The difficult conclusion must be that neither burden-sharing nor diplomacy will end this crisis, that migrants will continue to come in very substantial numbers, and Europe will continue to blunder along, torn between concern about their suffering and fears about a future different from the one we had until now imagined. overcrowded refugee centers and local authorities and police stretched to their

Historically the United States has focused on the loose concept of prevention while the private sector focused on treatment. Prevention is to keep something from occurring while treatment occurs after the fact and can increase cost. There are three types of prevention- primary (averting occurrence), secondary (halting progress) and tertiary (limiting impact) that could result in reducing the need to provide costly treatment that could have been avoided (Williams & Torrens, 2008). In addition, the history of the health care system has not been supportive of preventative measures for chronic conditions but paid physicians on a fee-for-service model that did not progress the need for long-term preventable health metrics (Williams & Torres,

In this Article, the authors discuss how the right to political asylum has been established and reestablished throughout history and its role in society now. They discuss how refugee law ties with the right to political asylum as more Syrians are trying to enter the Europe and gain asylum. The authors bring up the issue of the political divide in trying to handle the refugee crisis. They bring up the different issues that are causing controversy in being able to make a consistent policy to be able to have control over the migrant crisis. The authors also discuss the efforts that have been made to try to have control over the crisis.

A third concern entails the imposition of a time limit requiring “asylum seekers to file their claims within one year” of their arrival; notably, if it is not demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that” the claim was filed within the one-year deadline, the “claim for asylum will be rejected” (Asthana, 2011, p.37). Asthana (2011) refutes this practice, as “Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where […] life would be threatened on account of […] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (p.38). Consequently, concerns are raised, as a strict “enforcement of the one-year time limit implies that an asylum claimant who would be capable of establishing all the requisite elements necessary to achieve asylum may nevertheless be denied protection” if they fail to meet the deadline (Asthana, 2011, p.38). Thus, the “result is contrary to article 33(1) as it threatens the refoulement of a genuine refugee” (Asthana, 2011, p.39). Consequently, the UNHCR has argued that an asylum request should not be “excluded from consideration” simply due to the “failure to meet a filing deadline” (Settlage, 2012, p.159). Due to the “exceedingly complex” process, this practice is concerning as “[t]here are no exceptions for missing this deadline”; in fact, even “the failure to include information required on the application, or any errors or inconsistencies in the application, […] can be fatal to

Across the globe, the widespread refugee crisis has been severely mishandled by both European and non-European countries. The failure to organize and create new tactics has resulted in a mass influx of refugees on the borders of European countries (United Nations, 2016). Likewise, even though the crisis continues to generate national turmoil for nations that have been subjected to manage more than their country can reasonably handle, hardly any new legislation or programs have been implemented to require a shared responsibility of refugees amongst “well off’ countries. My proposal, called the Treaty of Immigration and Refugee Reform (TIRR) contains ideas that would require countries to share the responsibility of refugee placements, while also keeping the best interests of their own nation at the heart of the conversation. TIRR is a treaty that would consider many characteristics of nations that take in refugees and would seek to provide positive outcomes for both the citizens of the nation, and the fleeing refugees. For instance, TIRR would consider country size and environmental impacts, labor availability and tax subsidy prospects, population size, national poverty levels, and assimilation predictions when considering refugee allocations; by using these details we would be increase positive outcomes for all parties involved. Furthermore, since the treaty must be a “living” work that fluctuates with refugee emergencies, it requires a committee to constantly reevaluate

The principles of protection stated under Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees requires refugees to gain access to a state’s territory in order to exercise their rights to claim asylum. In order to deter asylum seekers, EU Member States have begun adopting restrictive national asylum systems. National asylum systems undermine burden-sharing initiatives due to regional differences. National policy harmonization is an approach to achieve a more equitable distribution of burdens among Member States, but the lack of cooperation between entry-point states, transit states, and destination states has resulted in policies committed to deterring refugees and asylum seekers, rather than aimed at their protection.

Since 2011, Syria has been engaged in a Civil War with protestors against the government and members of the extremist group ISIS, and approximately 7.6 million people have been displaced from their homes (usnews.com 2015). As the conflict destroys more homes and livelihoods each year, an increasing number of civilians have been forced to leave Syria and try to find safety elsewhere. Already a contentious issue, the Syrian refugee crisis has awakened tensions, both economic and social as debate erupts over what to do with the refugees.In response to the crisis, while some countries like Germany have pledged to help the refugees, (New Statesman 2015 1) only 2,340 have been admitted. Clearly, more needs to be done in order to help the refugees. Although there are economic and population concerns to be considered, the humanitarian conflict that faces the refugees and solutions already available are reason enough for Europe to increase the numbers of Syrian refugees allowed in.

The European refugee crisis began in 2015, when a rising number of refugees and migrants made the journey to the European Union (EU) to seek asylum. Refugees are people who have been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. According to the data that was shown in Business Standard and also confirmed by BBC News, the top ten nations which account for 90% of the sea arrivals in 2015 were: Syria (49%), Afghanistan (21%), Iraq (8%), Eritrea (4%), Pakistan, Nigeria and Somalia (2 %), Sudan, Gambia and Mali (1%). Also the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees confirms that the top three nationalities of refugees are Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi. Of the refugees and migrants arriving in Europe by sea in 2015, 58% were men, 17% women and 25% children. (Wright, 2015). According to Eurostat, EU member states received over 1.2 million first time asylum applications in 2015, 4 countries (Germany, Hungary, Sweden, and Austria) received around two-thirds, while Latvia received a very small part of them.

Over the past year, there has been a controversy on how many refugees should be allowed across European borders. According to an article on BBC, over one million people have crossed Europe’s borders trying to claim asylum and refugee status since December 2015. Over 50,000 have crossed over since the beginning of the year in January and the numbers show no signs of slowing down. Issues have risen in the European Union (EU) due to counties such as Greece, Hungary, and Italy where refugees are arriving in large numbers by boat. Members of the EU are negotiating to try to make refugee distribution more equal amongst the countries. Already, they have agreed to take in 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next two decades. In some areas, it is more dangerous

A third concern entails the establishment of a time limit, requiring “asylum seekers to file their claims within one year” of their arrival; notably, if it is not demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that” the claim was filed within the one-year deadline, the “claim for asylum will be rejected” (Asthana, 2011, p.37). Asthana (2011) refutes this practice, as “Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where […] life would be threatened on account of […] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (p.38). Consequently, concerns are raised, as a strict “enforcement of the one-year time limit implies that an asylum claimant who would be capable of establishing all the requisite elements necessary to achieve asylum may nevertheless be denied protection” if they fail to meet the deadline (Asthana, 2011, p.38). Thus, the “result is contrary to article 33(1) as it threatens the refoulement of a genuine refugee” (Asthana, 2011, p.39). Consequently, the UNHCR has argued that an asylum request should not be “excluded from consideration” simply due to the “failure to meet a filing deadline” (Settlage, 2012, p.159). Due to the “exceedingly complex” process, this practice raises concern as “[t]here are no exceptions for missing this deadline”; in fact, even “the failure to include information required on the application, or any errors or inconsistencies in the application, […] can be fatal

One final area of study will be how the EU’s legislation on asylum seekers and refugee law, such as the Dublin (I-III) Regulation, and the various variables within those topics, to examine what the flow of such populations into the EU is. My current theory is that the more tolerant policies are of asylum seekers and refugees, the more likely that those countries experience terrorism-based events. Furthermore, from those same countries, we can examine the reaction to those new populations, such as the 2009 Swiss minaret referendum (despite Switzerland not being part of the EU, it is a participant of the Schengen Area), or France’s famous “face covering” ban as antecedent variables.