United States Of The Gulf Cooperation Council ( Gcc )

We will now examine the policy of restricted borders, and how it is arbitrary in character. Primarily, the policy of closed borders is arbitrary when the right of emigration is compared to immigration. When comparing the right to emigrate with

Even with the plight of the current “migrant” or “refugee” crisis, the concept of open borders is one that States do not find attractive. States will never limit their sovereign rights on immigration issues. States have a fundamental right to determine (i) who can gain entry to a state and, (ii) the conditions of entry for a migrant in the

Migration is not a new phenomenon throughout the history of human, but the issue of migration has become more of a problem since the emerging of modern states. The distinction between immigrants and local citizens has become official with the emergence of nation-state authority and the ideas of sovereignty, citizenship and nationality. From the 19th century, the control of passport and visa has made the borders between immigrants and citizens even clearer and more identified. Today, as there are more restrictions on entering a country, states have to deal with regulating policies for immigration to control the influx of people

Migration policies are often designed with the sole objective of influencing international migration by either restricting or encouraging circular migration, immigration or emigration(Ripsman & Paul, 2010). Open border policies have contributed to the uncontrolled to the flow of illegal immigrants into countries and in turn generating challenges to the host countries. The fundamental basis for arguments has been whether open immigration policy or restricted immigration policy

Although it remains very much a contested issue, many observers have concluded that deterrence policies and tactics employed by wealthy, advanced capitalist states of the West will not over the long term curtail efforts by migrants and asylum seekers to make perilous journeys across international borders in search of safe havens and better living conditions (Sampson 2015).

Cheers to technology and the internet, the world has over the years turned to be a small village where physical and geographical barriers that hindered people’s movement from continent to continent no longer exist. As a result, people’s movements are no longer mired geographically, but rather by man-made policies. Such policies are termed as immigration policies. They denote a country’s set of rules and regulations that are formulated with the objective of guiding people entering and leaving the country. Worth mentioning early on is the fact that each and every country formulates its own set of immigration policies, and they are at

In the documentary of the “Revealed: Qatar’s World Cup ‘slaves’” give us an open view of a rich city like Qatar’s where dozens of immigrant workers live in deplorable conditions. One of the outrageous fact that was mention in the documentary is that the country has a policy that immigrant workers cannot leave their jobs or the country without the employer permission. Without a doubt this is a form of slavery allow by politicians in power that are enriching themselves with all the laws that allow companies to mistreat and exploit the employees and how the bureaucracy protect the traffickers, not the victims who are being mistreated, are working no or little pay, and don’t even have food or drink to survive the long hours of work. One of the

The Republic of Qatar opposes the proposition put forward by the United Nations regarding activities related to sex work. This proposition states that prostitution, meaning the engagement in sexual activities in exchange for payment, should be completely legalized. To legalize prostitution would be an extremely unfavourable decision due to its moral implications, which are opposed by Islam, and its impact on the human-trafficking rates in Qatar.

“The more we try to deal with migration simply by clamping down on it with tighter border controls, the more we find that human rights are sacrificed-on the journey, at the border, and inside host countries.”

Governments enact laws governing refugee and asylum seekers based on political factors. Ties between the country of origin and the country of asylum, national security and current event are some of the factors that cause governments to enact laws for political reasons. As a result, countries will use certain criteria to accept different flows of refuges that will foster a policy of discrimination. Policies enacted for political reasons do not always reflect the social climate of the country, but more times than not the social factors and the political factors are aligned with the same ideologies.

Loescher, G. 2001. The UNHCR and world politics: State interests vs. institutional autonomy. International Migration Review, 35(1), pp. 33-56. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676050 [Accessed: 24 April 2017].

“Kafala” system or sponsorship system is a system that been used to monitor migrant workforces in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. (Human Right Watch, 2008) This system requires in coming workers to have an in-country sponsor. It has been criticized by Human Right Organization as an open door to opportunities for employers exploiting and abusing labors since employers control over the workers’ visas, meaning they could refuse to allow labors to change jobs or stop them from leaving the country. It also totally leads to intimidation and mistreatment of working conditions. The reason of discontinuing Kafala is because it is a root cause of abusing by giving a too much power in sponsors’ hand. Stopping Kafala would bring justice between both parties in terms of rights and obligations.

As the U.S. struggles to come to a decision concerning the Syrian Refugee Crisis, the problem continues to grow in other parts of the world. This past November, the U. N. reached out to America, asking the country to honor their traditions and accept Syrian Refugees into the county to set an example for the rest of the world (Oren). However, fear of attack has made many countries more cautious and more likely to close their doors to Syrian refugees. Also, because America is taking so long to intervene, places such as Europe, North Africa and Asia are having to deal with the overflow of refugees. This means that they have to face the bulk of the problems that come with refugees as well, including the threat of future attacks, and immigrants slipping into the countries illegally.There are also many countries that have refused to take refugees, these countries include: Poland (Poland), Singapore, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, Japan, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia, some of the wealthiest countries in the middle east, have not offered to take in any Syrian Refugees, because these countries are already Islamized, and accepting refugees could lead to conflict. Russia, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea are also wealthy nations, but they have not accepted any refugees either, because they don’t want the conflict to be brought to their countries (The). Aside from Poland, european countries have made great strides when it comes to

There are over half a billion people who live in conflicted and fragile states that consists of wars, prosecutions, and even deaths. However, many people were displaced from their homes in the Syrian war of 2011. However, many left their countries in fear of being prosecuted for their beliefs, citizenships, part of a group, or due to their partisan opinions. However, these refugees left to their neighboring states like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. (2015, p. 1). They were heading to the Western States. The rising cause of the refugee issues to security, is they pose as a perceived threat to the host country. A globally forced displacements of refugees has been going on since there has been wars, disasters, conflicts, political upheavals

In the wake of the many terrorist attacks that had occurred in the last few decades, the terrified western world has taken new measures to protect its citizens. Borders have been shutdown and immigrants as well as refugees from the developing world, who are seeking a better life in the West, have been turned away. People who wish to go to the United States of America, Canada or Europe must face long interrogations before given a visa. Objectors of open borders state that such measures are necessary to prevent troubles, whether politically, economically or culturally. However, their arguments are invalid. Although contrary to popular belief, borders are unnecessary and do nothing but prevent the free movement of people.