ISIM Blog

Georgetown University Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service

[blogisim]

New Blog: Tunisia Arab Spring Decade Marks Withering Exodus by Gary Kleiman

Ten years ago tiny Tunisia with its “jasmine revolution,” sending longtime authoritarian President Ben Ali, into exile was the first in the region to spark economic and political changes under the sweeping Arab Spring umbrella. Unlike neighbors Egypt, Jordan and Morocco it had a relatively vibrant post-independence constitution-based record of democratic participation and social rights, most notably in women’s equality, which has translated into regular all-too-frequent elections with successive coalitions drawn from Islamic, secular and labor union-based parties. Another prime minister was appointed from late last year after compromise among these feuding groups, with a dozen cabinet ministers reshuffled just before the decade anniversary that sparked nationwide bloody protests again over income stagnation and 35% youth unemployment in particular. The damaging effects are clear on Europe’s shores, where 13,000 Tunisian emigrants crossed the Mediterranean last year, one-fifth of total arrivals through that route and a four-fold increase from 2019.

Clashes between demonstrators and police stretched from the capital Tunis to coastal towns like Sousse, traditional bastions of tourism accounting for 15% of gross domestic product, to inner poorer provinces reflecting an historic urban-rural divide. Over 500 were arrested in defiance of COVID curfews and lockdowns, with the economy shrinking 8% last year following meager less than 2% average growth from 2011-19. A $750 million spring emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund only enabled an estimated 2% of GDP in direct individual and company virus aid, one-third the global norm and lagging North Africa peers. Governments have turned repeatedly to the Fund under multi-year programs with core elements of fiscal stabilization and state enterprise reform consistently missed. In 2018 to close the perennial budget deficit most flagrantly due to a bloated civil service, tax hikes were proposed that prompted street violence and were soon revoked. Public debt has doubled over the past decade to reach 90% of national income this year, over the emerging market agreed danger zone and leaving scant room for maneuver. In this pinch Prime Minister Mechichi and his team have asked bilateral creditors including the US, European Union and Japan for payment extensions and resorted to direct $1 billion central bank borrowing to cover operations.

Sovereign ratings agencies have routinely downgraded the country to speculative status and the state-dominated banking sector outlook is negative with double-digit levels of bad loans and more to come once virus forbearance periods end. International accounting standards go into effect in 2022 to highlight the extent of capital and balance sheet harm. Tourism earnings fell 65% last year, and phosphate and auto assembly exports have suffered from factory shutdowns and weak global demand. Other than international development lending and aid, balance of payments inflows to cover the current account deficit rely heavily on remittances, a rare bright spot in 2020 with 10% growth to $2 billion. However, this improved sum also reflects the mass Mediterranean boat exodus, and is uncertain to be repeated pending the disposition of France-Europe family reunification, asylum, and temporary stay claims.

Gross domestic product recovery put at 4% this year will amount to half of last year’s loss, and the IMF expects a fiscal gap in the 7-9% range depending on a “social compact” for health and social protection while trimming government worker, state company, and energy subsidy spending. It urges bank cleanup and private investor sales, and corporate governance and anti-corruption actions with teeth. A December virtual mission was emphatic that the central bank’s reputation for low inflation and relative independence were at risk from budget monetary financing.

The US in past meetings of its bilateral economic council through the State Department, inactive in recent years, has tried to convey policy reform and stabilization messages to official counterparts and partially guaranteed commercial bond issues, in an agenda otherwise subsumed by international lender priorities and anti-terror security cooperation. After a decade of flailing efforts a private sector-led initiative is long overdue to break the debt-stagnation- emigration cycle with fresh investment and funding in exchange for convincing business and banking-friendly steps that bridge political, wealth and regional divides. The government-to-government dialogue should be revived after enthusiasm flagged midway through the Arab Spring decade.A standing commercial support group of US and global executives may offer novel solutions and an overlooked constituency for addressing the despair that drives migration. Absent a hopeful pause reviving the original revolutionary spirit, Tunisians attempted escape in the tens of thousands will inexorably multiply into six figures as a result of compounding debt/poverty tragedies at home.

Gary N. Kleiman is an ISIM Georgetown Affiliate. Kleiman pioneered and recognized expert in the field of global emerging economies and financial markets. He founded the first consulting firm dedicated to providing independent analysis and advice to public and private sector clients and was an adjunct professor and developed an emerging market finance course for the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

[blogisim]

COVID-19 Impacts on Migration and Displacement

The pandemic of Covid-19 is having an enormous impact on vulnerable populations worldwide. The effects on mobility are “unprecedented,” says the International Organization for Migration, particularly for the millions of migrants and displaced persons living and working in other countries. Some people on the move – whether for jobs, tourism, studies, or business – are heading back to their home countries. U.S. citizens traveling and working overseas are returning back. Many international students have struggled to return home. Others cannot return home because it no longer offers stability and peace.

For centuries, international migration has contributed to global prosperity and development but, in the context of a pandemic, it also has downsides. Those on the move may both contribute to the spread of Covid-19 as well as be victims to it.

Many migrants live in poverty, often in densely populated places, where social distancing is neither practical nor possible. They are less likely to be able to access the medical care they need, including testing and treatment. U.N. Secretary-General Guterres estimates that Covid-19 will result in unprecedented job and income loss, huge reductions in direct foreign investments, and more than one billion young people shut out of school.

The devastating impacts of job loss for migrants became very clear last week, when thousands of Indian migrants lost their jobs after the government announced lockdowns in states and cities throughout the country. Chaos erupted after an insufficient supply of buses arrived to transport migrants back home. In close proximity to other migrants, those able to secure a seat on these buses arrived but they were only allowed to return to their homes after officials sprayed them with a bleach disinfectant. Those unable to return by bus were left to walk up to hundreds of miles home, often in close proximity to others, making them more susceptible to getting and transmitting the virus.

As countries closed their borders, Human Rights Watch described the many Nepali migrant workers unable to return home after Nepal stopped all international flights on March 22nd. When Colombia closed its border on March 14th, Venezuelan migrants seeking refuge had no other option except to informally cross the border. Although some deportations back to Venezuela occurred, reports suggest that Colombian officials permitted many Venezuelans to remain especially those needing medical care. UNHCR is urging protection for the displaced, saying the virus “does not discriminate” and “that refugees, those forcibly displaced, the stateless and migrants are at heightened risk.”

A few countries have responded in ways that respect the rights of migrants. For example, on March 18th and the eve of an outbreak of the coronavirus, Portugal declared a State of Emergency. Several weeks later, it temporarily offered citizenship rights to all migrants and asylum seekers with pending applications for permanent residency. For six months, these migrants and asylum seekers will have the full rights of any foreign citizen including access to health care.

In the United States, the situation is bleak yet uneven. Unauthorized immigrants workers, e.g. those without a valid Social Security number, are especially vulnerable because they are likely to be laid off but ineligible for benefits from the $2 trillion Covid-19 stimulus package recently passed by Congress. Although these immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy and pay taxes, they are shut out of programs intended to help workers. By contrast, other immigrant adults, such as those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Temporary Protected Status who have a Social Security number, should be eligible for unemployment benefits and should receive a $1200 check from the stimulus legislation. For those who need processing and adjudicating of immigration issues, Covid-19 has reduced the service capacity of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Although USCIS centers are operational via telework, some specific services have been postponed – a situation complicated by USCIS’ inability to receive electronically filed applications for different types of visas. For unaccompanied migrant children already in U.S. custody, some are requesting they be released to sponsors rather than be housed in the Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities where some have tested positive for the virus. For adult migrants held in detention facilities, medical professionals and the American Civil Liberties Union are also advocating for their release in light of the outbreak.

Since March 20th when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an order that barred entry of those who crossed into the United States without authorization, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are returning to Mexico in record time unaccompanied migrant children and others seeking asylum at the border without offering protection. Yet CBP still insists that asylum seekers, who months ago arrived at the Mexico-U.S. border and were sent to wait in Mexico until their U.S. court dates, present themselves to CBP officials by 5 a.m. on their hearing day, raising their risks of being suspectible to and/or transmitting the virus. They then obtain notices with new court dates as all hearings have been postponed until May 1st.  

These are a few of the Covid-19 impacts on refugees, others who have been forcibly displaced, and migrants. We, at ISIM, will continue to track these developments as we move forward, and we welcome your support and assistance in doing so. Please email us with your thoughts ([email protected]).

Dr. Katharine M. Donato is the Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration, and Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration, in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

[blogisim]

Refugee Policies and The Assault on American Values

I have often been critical of the US government’s policies toward refugees and immigrants, but current policies aren’t just tinkering with a basically sound system. They are an assault on the very essence of who we are as a country. The attacks on core values seem to be coming from all sides. Separating children at the border. Sending desperate people back to Mexico where their lives are in danger instead of giving them a chance to tell their stories and seek asylum (which is, after all, a basic human right). Announcing an end to DACA, which leaves 700,000 young people to face the prospect of not being allowed to stay in a country they feel is home. Refugee resettlement numbers slashed to the lowest level ever and no refugees – zero refugees -- arriving last month – for the first time in my lifetime. Less visible perhaps but equally devastating in the long term are the multitude of ‘minor’ changes in procedures – from penalizing immigrants who use public assistance to increasing the fees for immigration documents to increased vetting procedures for resettled refugees. Even if there is a change in administration next year, it will take a long, long time to undo many of these changes. And at a time when global leadership and a moral voice is most needed to deal with complicated displacement situations, the US government is mostly absent.

It is true that in spite of the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty – ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free’ – the US has never had a golden age when all of the world’s tired and poor could find safety and respect within US borders. We have had periods of ferocious anti-immigrant sentiment and historically immigrants have had to work hard to find their place in our society. But America is different from almost all other countries in the world in that we have been built by immigrants. This is who we are. It was immigrants who settled the great plains and developed the amazingly productive breadbasket of the Midwest and it was immigrants who provided the dynamism for which our great cities are known. Look at the founders of our major tech companies and look at the immigrants who are every day caring for our elderly and landscaping the lawns of our neighborhoods. For all of its flaws, the US has provided opportunities galore for those willing to work hard. 

Twenty years ago I was living in a European country had very generous policies toward refugees. At the time, refugees were given three years of full salary to learn the language, their kids had the right to instruction in their own language (and our son’s middle school offered over 100 languages to foreign students), and refugees had free comprehensive health care. One day an Iraqi refugee approached me and asked ‘how can I get to the US?’ I replied. ‘You’re crazy. Why would you want to move away from a country with all of these advantages to go to the US where you’ll immediately have to find a job even though you don’t speak English and will only have a few months to work out a complicated and expensive health care plan?’ In a very soft voice, he said ‘Because I know that my children will be American.’ I still feel a chill when I think of that encounter. There is something very special about the United States where, regardless of your accent or your last name or your father’s occupation, you can be an American with all the rights and privileges of all Americans. As Fiona Hill said in her testimony before Congress, the United States has been a beacon of hope for the world. With today’s assault on our immigration and asylum policies, we’re in danger of losing that which makes us special, that which makes us American.

There are, of course, economic arguments to be made for generous asylum and immigration policies. Study after study shows that refugees are net economic contributors to the United States. In places like Maine, nursing homes are having to close because they can’t find staff and industries such as the Maryland crab industry have suffered from not being able to employ seasonal foreign workers. But for me, the basic reason why we should resettle more refugees, regularize the status of the dreamers, and give frightened people the chance to make their asylum claims through a fair process is that this is who we are as a people, as a country. These are values worth fighting for.

Dr. Elizabeth Ferris is an ISIM Research Professor at Georgetown and a non-resident senior fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. She joined ISIM in Fall 2015 after serving for 9 years as a Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the Brookings Project on Internal Displacement and as an adjunct professor in Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. 

[blogisim]

Protection Concerns for Families and Children at the US-Mexico Border

The situation at the US-Mexico border has been challenging for years, and in recent years has become dire. As Refugees International has reported and shared in public testimony, the crisis is less about an overwhelming influx, and more a result of US government policy choices. Amidst a range of disastrous policy choices, the most recent Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP) policy, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” contradicts US asylum laws and norms, and is creating dangerous protection concerns for asylum-seeking migrants and others along the US-Mexico border. Instituted in early 2019, asylum seekers under MPP are now required to wait in Mexico until their court date in the United States. This can take months, and asylum seekers must travel back to the port of entry for their court dates with an immigration judge.

Besides being inconsistent with US laws and principles, MPP puts the most vulnerable—pregnant women, young children, and babies—in danger. A recent visit to Juarez, Mexico, also revealed a range of protection concerns for asylum seekers waiting under MPP. As most asylum seekers have few resources or family networks, most find themselves in shelters located throughout Juarez. These shelters vary widely, from tiny, poor churches that have opened their doors to a few needy families, to a large, government-run warehouse that can accommodate large numbers of migrants. Those who are lucky may find themselves in shelters with comfortable beds, functioning facilities, and quality security. The majority, however, have little choice but to stay in shelters that meet few protection needs of the asylum seekers. Some, like Pan de Vida shelter, are consistently targeted by criminal groups.  When visiting in August 2019, asylum seekers in the shelter reported a group of men from a local cartel diving through the shelter area waving guns and shouting at children nearby.  Parents and children were terrified.  Cooking and sleeping areas are also poorly secured, and a dusty play area sits at the center of the shelter. Many shelters are also inaccessible to lawyers, located long distances from the city center and international bridge, meaning asylum seekers waiting under MPP are denied representation to which they are entitled. One shelter does not permit migrants to have cell phones, making it impossible for lawyers to reach their clients.

Children, in particular, are generally unable to go to school. While Mexican policy affords them the right, parents tend to be too afraid to send them out of the shelters, where there is a high likelihood of their being kidnapped. Without mental health services, many children and adults remain deeply scarred—physically and emotionally—from the violence they fled in their home countries and experienced on the journey northward or at the US-Mexico border. Indeed, interviewees consistently discussed the risk of kidnapping for ransom—a common occurrence for asylum seekers returned to Juarez under MPP. Human Rights First reports that kidnappings in Juarez rose by a staggering one-hundred percent in the first six months of 2019.

Juarez is simply unable to cope. DHS returned some 28,569 people to Mexico—an average of 450 per day—as of August 2019. Already struggling with crime, cartels and economic challenges, Juarez does not have the protection or assistance infrastructure to respond. In light of this, some recommendations to the international community include:

International actors, including the UN, international NGOs, and others must mobilize more attention and resources along the border. This need not mean a large international presence or UN-run camps. Instead, it should be in the form of building capacity among willing local actors, establishing standards and protocols to hold responders accountable, and fighting impunity and corruption that are rampant in Juarez.

Greater funding must be mobilized to assist local, national and international actors along the border.

Increased coordination mechanisms need to be implemented to connect Juarez with other border cities sheltering those under MPP.

Systematic advocacy to pressure the US and Mexican governments to overturn MPP.  This should include systematic advocacy to pressure the US and Mexican governments to overturn MPP and heighten the visibility of protection concerns along the US-Mexico border.

Improved safe and reliable means of transportation for asylum seekers, including to get children to school, to help families visit with lawyers, attend medical appointments and purchase needed goods. Families should not be trapped in shelters out of fear for months on end.

*In August 2019, Refugees International Senior Fellow, Dr. Sarah Miller (Adjunct Faculty at Columbia University and Fordham University), and Georgetown Professor and ISIM Director Dr. Katharine Donato, traveled together with two other team members to visit Juarez, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas, to learn about protection concerns for children and families at the border. A Fordham University report on child protection at the US-Mexico border is forthcoming in the coming months.

[blogisim]

Thanksgiving in a Refugee Settlement: Between Fear and Gratitude in Kiryandongo, Uganda

At a time when anti-foreigner sentiments are on the rise across the world, Uganda has the highest number of refugees in Africa; it is also the third top refugee-hosting nation in the world after Turkey and Pakistan. Over one million of the 1.4 million refugees currently living in Uganda hail from neighboring South Sudan; their country has been ravaged by a brutal inter-ethnic conflict for most of the last five years. Close to sixty-thousand of these South Sudanese refugees live in Kiryandongo, a settlement 140 miles northwest of Kampala. This year, I’m spending my Thanksgiving break among them.

Kiryandongo Refugee Settlement in Bweyale, central Uganda. Credit: Marisa O. Ensor

As a Europe-born naturalized US citizen, I’ve always thought of Thanksgiving as one of the most American of holidays.  On Thanksgiving, we celebrate people emigrating to America and being welcomed by those who were already here.  What holiday could be better to welcome refugees to this country?

Celebrating and sustaining the United States’ long tradition of offering refuge to those fleeing persecution and war is now more important than ever. According to the latest UNHCR’s Report on Global Trends on Forced Displacement, we are now witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record. By the end of last year, an unprecedented 68.5 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, or generalized violence; nearly 25.4 million of them are refugees. Approximately 85% of these refugees are hosted by developing countries.

The link between threats to peace and security and forced displacement in Sub-Saharan Africa has been a central aspect of my work as a political anthropologist and refugee rights advocate for the last 15 years. I often focus on young people’s experiences – they make up the largest demographic sector in the societies where I work. While young people face enormous challenges in conflict-affected and fragile countries like Uganda and South Sudan, they also have particular strengths and enormous resilience. The UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security, which was unanimously adopted in 2015, recognizes and promotes young people’s important contributions in this field.

Some of my earlier research involved a group of young South Sudanese refugees resettled in the US – the celebrated “Lost Boys of Sudan”.  I have also been both in Uganda and in South Sudan on numerous occasions. I feel particularly privileged to be able to spend time in Kiryandongo where so many young South Sudanese refugees are mobilizing to promote the peaceful transformation of their beleaguered country.

Refugees in Uganda In Uganda, refugees are hosted in designated areas called “settlements”, not camps. Refugees living in camps are typically isolated from the rest of the population and often unable to leave. In Ugandan settlements, on the other hand, refugees are granted relative freedom of movement, equal access to primary education, healthcare and other basic social services. They are provided with land to put up their own shelters and to practice some agriculture to supplement food rations. They also have the right to work and own a business. The 2016 UN Summit for Refugees praised Uganda for having one of the most progressive and generous refugee laws and policy regimes in the world.

There are 28 refugee settlements currently in operation in Uganda.  Some of them opened only in the last few years specifically to accommodate the arrival of South Sudanese refugees. A case in point is Kiryandongo Refugee Settlement, a UNHCR managed refugee hosting area in Bweyale, central Uganda. With approximately 270,000 nationals and close to 60,000 refugees living in Kiryandongo District, refugees in Kiryandongo account for 17% of the population.

Behind those numbers are personal tales of violence, uprooting, deprivation and fear, but also strength and hope for a better future. The young refugees with whom I work here have gone through major traumatic events. Some saw their parents killed before their very eyes, others suffered abhorrent sexual violence … yet, they are now asking themselves how they can move past their physical and emotional scars, and contribute to the betterment of their country. Education is almost always their answer.

Uganda’s educational model allows both refugees and nationals to attend the available public schools. The limited number of both teachers and classrooms, on the other hand, has forced some schools to offer separate morning and afternoon shifts; other times, classes are taught under trees. The large numbers of students have also resulted in overcrowding and higher than usual student-to-teacher ratios – the national ratio is 1:45. Secondary school-aged youngsters are least likely to be enrolled in school.  Refugee families cannot always afford the high tuition costs, given the limited livelihoods opportunities. Refugee girls are even more likely to drop out of school, with commonly reported early marriages and unwanted pregnancies.

With a group of young South Sudanese refugees in Kiryandongo Settlement. Credit: Marisa O. Ensor

In spite of the enormous challenges they face, these young refugees are not giving up hope. With support from various UN agencies, several NGOs, and private benefactors, a growing number of “youth networks” are being established throughout Uganda’s refugee settlements. These networks are collectives of loosely organized youngsters working to bring back peace and reconciliation to their communities. Both girls and boys are encouraged to participate, and girls are particularly active despite their heavier burdens – e.g. household chores; younger sibling caretaking responsibilities.  I am always inspired by their interest in learning peacebuilding tools such as mediation, and conflict analysis and resolution. The important role that women and girls play in peacebuilding was reaffirmed by the unanimous adoption of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security). Both Uganda and South Sudan have launched National Action Plans for the implementation of UNSCR 1325.

Conclusions:  From Fear of Persecution to a Glimmer of Hope I was doing fieldwork in South Sudan on September 12th, 2018, when a new peace agreement was signed by Salva Kiir, the president of South Sudan, and his major adversary, the former vice-president and rebel leader Riek Machar. Most, but not all, South Sudanese refugees will in time go back home. Special circumstances may cause some of them to still be at risk even after peace has returned to their country. These particularly vulnerable refugees are usually selected for resettlement to a safe country.

Historically the US has resettled more refugees than any other country in the world.  However, while the global refugee population has increased by about 50% over the past five years, resettlement opportunities in the US are being drastically reduced.  In 2016, the US admitted nearly 85,000 refugees; that number declined to fewer than 54,000 in 2017. For 2018, the refugee admission cap has been reduced to 45,000, the lowest since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980.

South Sudanese refugees in Uganda currently have a negligible chance of being resettled in the US. The majority of them just dream of going home and rebuild their lives there when it’s safe enough to do so. In the meantime, they are grateful for their relative safety in the refugee settlements. This Thanksgiving, I am grateful to these young refugees for allowing me to share with them a small part of their journeys of hope.

Marisa O. Ensor, PhD, LLM, is a GU Faculty Affiliate of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Prior to joining Georgetown she taught at several universities in the US and abroad, including the American University in Cairo’s Center for Migration and Refugee Studies.

[blogisim]

When Children are No Longer Children: Proposed Rules to Replace the Flores Settlement Agreement

On September 7th, 2018, the Trump Administration proposed new regulations to remove central safeguards for immigrant children held in government custody. The new rules would terminate the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (Flores), which contains key protections for migrant children and has protected the treatment of child and families in detention. 

Flores stipulates that the United States has a “general policy favoring release” of minors from immigration detention. If no suitable release option is available, the government is then obligated to place children in the “least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs.” As a result of Flores, children cannot be detained for more than 20 days, and while in detention, they are eligible for minimum standards of care including access to education, recreation, and medical and dental care. 

Below we offer a brief analysis of the administration’s proposed rules and what they mean for  children accompanied by family members and unaccompanied minor children. 

Accompanied Children

The proposed rules would significantly weaken protections for immigrant children in government custody, with distinct consequences for unaccompanied minors (UACs) vs. those entering with families (ACs). 

Although Flores did not distinguish between these two groups, and its protections were applied to all children, the new rules separate children into categories of “accompanied” and “unaccompanied” and distinguish between the protections afforded to the two groups. Thus, in contrast to their protections in the past, ACs and their families will no longer be eligible for the same protections that UACs receive. Whereas Flores aimed to safeguard all minors given their unique needs and vulnerabilities, the proposed regulations mandate that accompanied children are no longer seen as children under the law.  

For example, after the new rules are implemented, accompanied children placed in expedited removal would be held with the same parole standards as adults. These children will also no longer have a right to a bond hearing. Having children ineligible for bond or parole means that these children will be detained for longer periods. 

The proposed rules will also permit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to operate family jails under their own self-licensing standards. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will set the minimum standards, which means that ICE will be responsible for enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration and for protecting children by developing the licensing standards for family detention centers. Although there is mention of an independent auditor to monitor how facilities integrate ICE’s licensing standards, there are few specifics about the auditing process.

Longer Detention: The new licensing arrangement that allocates ICE to set the standards for protecting children in detention will also eliminate the 20 day cap for detaining minors. As a result, children will be detained with their families throughout the asylum-seeking proceedings, a process that takes years. This change results in the indefinite detention of children. It is also likely to present new, and perhaps insurmountable, hurdles for families seeking asylum to successfully pursue their claims, given their limited access to lawyers and other advocates while in detention. 

More Discretion: The new rules also offer new discretion about the conditions that ACs face while being detained or transported. For example, because Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) processing centers were never intended to house children for any period of time, the rules state that these centers should not be expected to accommodate minors – despite the fact that thousands of minors are, and have been, processed in these CBP centers and held there for up to 72 hours. The proposed changes also discuss how certain rights of children can be waived in an emergency, widening the definition of an emergency to “flexible” and “cover[ing] a wide range of possib[ilites].” Thus, these changes lower the minimum standards of care for children in CBP processing centers and, at the same time, they broaden the definition of emergency situations when detained children can be denied basic protections. 

The rules also allow discuss “operational feasibility” as a factor when considering, when DHS is required to allow contact between a detained UAC and his or her family members in the same facility. These types of benefits for children are not guaranteed whenever “possible” but rather only when “operationally feasible.”

Unaccompanied Children 

Fewer Sponsors: Although the above changes apply to ACs, UACs will not be immune from the proposed rules. In fact, they severely restrict release options for UACs who will be released from government custody only to a parent or guardian. UACs will no longer be released to other relatives such as aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents. The rules also require fingerprinting of sponsors, which is likely to deter undocumented persons from coming forward to sponsor their children because of fear of deportation. Together, these changes will lower the release options for children and result in their detention for longer periods of time.

New Discretion. The proposed rules also infuse new discretion in UAC treatment during the court process. For example, immigration judges will now determine whether children are UACs each time they encounter the child. Once a child no longer meets the definition of a UAC, e.g. he/she becomes 18 years of age, UAC legal protections will cease to apply. The new rules also authorize DHS to detain children again (after they had been released) without establishing a change of circumstances. 

Taken together, the proposed changes – if implemented – will dramatically shift the protections that migrant children face. Potent and powerful, the new rules treat migrant children not as children who are vulnerable and need protection. 

In a world where conflict and displacement are increasing, children deserve much better – especially in the nation of immigrants, the United States.   

Dr. Katharine M. Donato is the Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration and Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Elana King-Nakaoka is a senior at Georgetown and a member of No Lost Generation, a student group supporting refugees.  

[blogisim]

Five Takeaways about Migration in the Trump Era and Beyond

A few days ago, the President signed a proclamation that limits asylum claims only to those entering the United States through legal ports of entry. These and other past actions of the administration ignore five key takeaways about migration and refugees.

First, most migration worldwide is safe, orderly and regular. As of 2017, there were 258 million international migrants living outside their countries of birth. Most migrate in an orderly and predictable way, and with authorization. Many migrate for work, and most travel with support from their countries of birth. In the United States, approximately 1 million persons receive permanent residency each year and, since 2000, approximately 11 million persons are living here without legal documents. 

Second, migration is good for most countries, economies and societies. Immigration fuels local, regional, and national economies. As Pia Orrenius argues, when immigrants enter the labor force, they raise productive capacity. Known as the “immigration surplus,” immigrants’ incomes rise as do those of natives. Estimates of this benefit range from $36-72 billion per year in the United States.

Immigrants benefit particular industry sectors where labor demand is especially strong, and high-skilled immigrants offer innovation and other benefits. Industry wages for competing workers may drop immediately after immigrants enter a new industry sector, but this effect is temporary. Over time, society benefits from the lower prices of goods and services generated by immigrants. 

Third, although there are many more displaced persons in the world now compared to a few decades ago, Elizabeth Ferris reminds us that today’s challenges are not a crisis in numbers.

UNHCR tells us there are 68.5 million displaced persons in the world – approximately 20 million are refugees and 40 million are persons internally displaced. Although these numbers have grown each year for the last 10 years, relative to the size of the world’s population of approximately 7 billion persons, 68.5 million displaced is not a crisis of numbers. Instead, it is a crisis of management. In the United States, despite exponential growth in border enforcement funding since the late 1980s, the administration currently views a caravan of several thousand asylum seekers from Honduras as an invasion. To respond, more than 10,000 National Guard were sent to the southwest border to aid U.S. Customs and Border Protection in logistics and preparation. 

Of course, situations like this one are challenging because they are acute and can have substantial localized impacts. But given that border funding is rising when border apprehensions are at a historic low, managing with integrity those seeking asylum should be possible. 

Fourth, U.S. leadership on how to promote and manage migration under the current administration has plummeted. Despite a slow-down in U.S. immigration in recent years, the administration continues to use immigration to attract and maintain support from its base and deflect attention away from other concerns. It does this by promoting an outdated narrative of an out-of-control southern border, implementing policies and practices that restrict immigration, and substantially lowering the annual refugee ceiling for the second year in a row. 

Thus, U.S. leadership to promote migration has dissipated. The Pew Research Center reports the number of U.S. refugees declined more than any other country. Since 1980, the United States resettled fewer refugees than the rest of the world. 

Fifth, for the first time in history, the world has developed two new global compacts to manage global migration. In September 2016, all countries in the United Nations agreed to develop two global compacts on migrants and refugees by the end of 2018. Drafts of the Global Compact for Migration, and Global Compact for Refugees, are now finalized. They have relative strengths and weaknesses, and while some countries like the United States have pulled their support of the migration compact, a new era of global governance for migration has begun. 

There is a deep reservoir of knowledge available to inform and advance the ways in which countries manage migration issues. We hope that world leaders will use this information, rather than ignore it.

Dr. Katharine M. Donato is the Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration and Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Dr. Elizabeth Ferris is a research professor and ISIM’s acting director. She has worked in the humanitarian sector for 20 years, taught at several US universities and served as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

[blogisim]

Caravans from El Salvador: The Tip of the Iceberg

It’s been an interesting week to be in El Salvador.  I came to the country at the invitation of Cristosal to provide a global perspective on the importance of adopting laws on internal displacement.   And yet the news here – as in the US – is filled with reports of caravans of migrants leaving for the United States.  Just in the past few days, hundreds of people – in two caravans – have left San Salvador and most people think that more caravans will leave in the future.  The news from the US is all about bellicose tweets from President Trump warning that the migrants will be met with military force and will be turned back.  The stories I read here are different – accounts of desperate parents who feel that the only way to protect their children is to leave the country, of families setting off on foot for what they know will be a long journey.

I am told by colleagues here that long before the caravans made headlines, 300-400 Salvadorans crossed the Guatemalan border every day for the long journey north.  The difference is that now they are leaving in groups – groups that are perceived to be both safer and cheaper.  For desperate families who don’t have $10,000 to pay a coyote, joining a caravan makes a lot of sense, particularly when staying here means risking death.  From what I’ve seen, the drivers of migration are many – lack of economic opportunities, fear of gang violence, a desire to join family members in the US.  But these are all related.  People can’t make a living when gangs control their neighborhoods; the Central Bank estimates that up to 70% of Salvadoran businesses face extortion. Family reunification is often a proxy for using family networks to protect the most vulnerable members.

I find it incredibly sad that so many are choosing to leave now – during a presidential campaign in El Salvador.  It’s as if they have no hope that any of the candidates will bring about the change necessary for them to live in safety and dignity in their country. Many Central Americans feel that they have exhausted peaceful and democratic means to make change and, instead of violence, are deciding to escape.  As the US government used to say with respect to Cubans making the treacherous journey to the United States, ‘they are voting with their feet.’ The US government isn’t saying that now, of course, but the Salvadorans – and the Hondurans and the Guatemalans – are indeed voting with their feet. They are voting on the governments’ security policies; while homicide rates are marginally reduced, the perception of insecurity and citizens’ inability to seek support from the state to safeguard their lives and livelihoods is driving this exodus.

At the same time, I can’t help but admire the courage of these Salvadorans willing to take the risks inherent in a long journey in search of safety and a better life. After all, that’s largely how the United States was settled;  everyone in my country is descended from either Native Americans, refugees, slaves, or immigrants.  

There’s a relationship between the migrants setting off in caravans for the United States and the internal displacement issue I came to El Salvador to work on. As Walter Kälin and I have written previously, in July 2018 El Salvador’s  Constitutional Court issued a ruling which compels the government to recognize the phenomenon of internal displacement and to develop a law to protect internally displaced persons (IDPs).  The judgment gave the government six months to comply with its order. While a law has been presented to the Legislative Assembly, my impression after a few days of meetings with the government, civil society organizations, the press and academia is that a lot of work is needed before it is adopted and there are only 2 months left of the six month timeline.

Although reportedly hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by gangs and generalized violence throughout the Northern Triangle – El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala – none of these governments has yet adopted a law on internal displacement. So far, Honduras is the only country in the region to recognize the phenomenon of internal displacement and has named an Interinstitutional Commission on internal displacement but as yet no law or national policy has been adopted.

Recognizing the fact that people are being displaced by violence in the country and taking steps to protect and assist those who are displaced is the responsible thing for governments to do. Governments everywhere have a responsibility to protect their people – including those who have been displaced. People do not lose their rights when they are displaced and governments have a responsibility to protect the rights of IDPs. Certainly at a time when large numbers of people are choosing to leave El Salvador, it is incumbent on the government to do everything possible to ensure that its citizens are able to live in safety and dignity.  Passing a law upholding the rights of IDPs would be an important step in this regard.

Dr. Elizabeth Ferris is a research professor at ISIM. She has worked in the humanitarian sector for 20 years, taught at several US universities and served as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  

[blogisim]

Ripping off the band-aid: US cuts off UNRWA funding

In cutting off aid to the 5+ million Palestinian refugees, the Trump administration has ripped the band-aid off a deep and painful wound. I wonder if the administration has thought through the consequences of its actions.  

The decision to cut $350 million in contributions to UNRWA and another $200 million to other agencies working with Palestinian refugees in the region has dire consequences for Palestinians, for UNRWA, for the political actors in the region, and indeed for people living far from the Middle East. While it is gratifying to see other countries increasing their donations to UNRWA, it is unlikely that they will be able to make up the shortfall. The US has, after all, been the largest contributor to UNRWA from the beginning and its contributions make up a third of UNRWA’s budget. And even if other countries were to re-program their funds to give more to UNRWA, it’s likely that at least some of those funds would come from other humanitarian accounts – including those intended to support refugees in other parts of the world.

Conditions for Palestinians, particularly those in Gaza, were already dire. Since Hamas came into power – eleven long years ago – Israel has imposed a siege on the territory. Last year, a UN Mission found that conditions had significantly deteriorated since the siege was imposed. Real GDP had declined, average income had fallen, there were fewer doctors per population, unemployment had increased to 42% (and youth unemployment stood at a shocking 60%+). It was hard to imagine that conditions could get even worse. And then the Trump administration knocked the legs out from under UNRWA which, for the past 68 years, has provided education and health care to millions of refugees.  

But it’s not only Gaza. UNRWA also works in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank. What happens to governments in those countries when Palestine refugees can no longer count on UNRWA for health care and education?  In Lebanon, UNRWA serves around 175,000 Palestinian refugees and runs 66 schools and 27 health centers. Who will pick up the slack when the funding stops? The Jordanian leadership has highlighted that the opportunity for 122,000 Palestinian boys and girls to attend UNRWA schools in Jordan is a matter of regional security and stability.

The pressures on host governments in the Middle East is increasing – at a time when Jordan and Lebanon are reeling under the pressures of caring for Syrian and (still) Iraqi refugees in their countries. Obviously, the Palestinian refugees can’t be sent back home, but the already mounting pressures on host governments to return Syrian refugees will undoubtedly increase. My sense is that all refugees in the region will suffer as a result of this short-sighted action to cut UNRWA funding.    

I’ve always admired the dedication of UNRWA’s staff; 98% of its 30,000 employees are Palestinians themselves and the care and compassion they exhibit have long been an inspiration for the humanitarian community. I worry now not only about the kids who will likely not be able to go to school but about all of the Palestine refugees who will suffer. When UNRWA suspends educational programs – as they will have to do if the shortfall continues – then UNRWA staff and school teachers will lose their jobs or see a cut in their salaries (most likely both). When parents lose their jobs, children are likely to go hungry. I can’t imagine what these cuts will mean for UNRWA’s emergency assistance programs, already stretched to the limit. I ache for UNRWA staff faced with impossible choices – between education and health, between support for livelihoods and emergency aid.

As others have noted, this is an incredibly short-sighted policy shift by the US government. It’s in US interests to support UNRWA for straightforward humanitarian reasons. It’s in US interests because it contributes to political stability. It’s in US interests because we haven’t been able to make much progress on the long-term political solution that the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve. 

Humanitarian assistance is supposed to be short-term – to give time for political leaders to work out political solutions to end the conflicts that cause humanitarian crises. Humanitarian assistance isn’t supposed to last for decades. It has always been a band-aid solution. No one is happy with the fact that Palestinian refugees are still dependent on UNRWA for basic necessities (least of all the Palestinians). But it’s been 70 years and political solutions for the Palestinians seem more distant than ever. There’s a reason the band-aid has remained in place all of these years.  

Although the Trump administration has promised a new peace initiative in the region, by cutting funds to Palestinians, the US has lost whatever credibility it had as a neutral party uniquely-positioned to broker a fair agreement between Israel and Palestine. Perhaps another broker will emerge.  Perhaps Israel will lift the blockade of Gaza which limits the ability of Gazans to be self-reliant. Perhaps some other way will be found to provide education to hundreds of thousands of refugee children. Perhaps the US administration really does have a feasible solution for a dilemma that has confounded the most skilled and experienced US and European diplomats for half a century. But the likelihood is that we’re in for a very rough time in the Middle East. You’d think we would have learned from Iraq in 2003. Ripping off band-aids has consequences.  

Dr. Elizabeth Ferris is a research professor at ISIM. She has worked in the humanitarian sector for 20 years, taught at several US universities and served as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  

[blogisim]

The Global Compact on Migration and Kerala

I’ve been following the development of the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) for the past couple of years, but the issues really hit home to me last month in Kerala, India. I traveled to Kerala and later to Tamil Nadu under the auspices of the US Speakers Program for India to give a series of lectures and presentations on various migration and refugee issues, including the Global Compacts. I knew that the GCM marks a turning point in international response to migration and, like many in the migration community, I’m anxiously awaiting its adoption in December at the Intergovernmental Conference in Marrakesh, Morocco. But talking – and learning – about migration in Kerala made it clear that this global compact will not only strengthen global governance but more importantly, will have a direct impact on the lives of millions of migrants.

With a population of about 34 million people, Kerala ranks highest among India’s states on most social development indicators – literacy, life expectancy, education. Kerala is also a large exporter of people. Some 3 million of its citizens work overseas – 90% of them in the Gulf states. The remittances they send home contribute about a third of the state’s GDP. While there is a long tradition of migration from Kerala to other parts of Asia, the migration boom really took off in the mid-1970s with the surge in oil prices – quickly followed by the construction boom in the Gulf countries.

Migration has many consequences for Kerala. Most obviously, the flow of remittances fuels development and is having a ripple effect, not only in Kerala but in other Indian states as well. Wages are now higher in Kerala, attracting migrants from other parts of India, particularly from scheduled castes and tribes. The remittances sent home by Keralites working in the Gulf are fueling development in Kerala which in turn is attracting internal migrants from lower-income states – and the remittances those internal migrants send home are helping families in their states of origin. The whole emphasis of the GCM is on supporting safe, orderly and regular migration as a driver of economic growth and prosperity. This is playing out in spades in Kerala. Objective 19 of the GCM emphasizes the importance of remittances in contribution to development while Objective 20 talks about the importance of facilitating remittances and decreasing the costs to migrants of sending money home. Implementation of both of these objectives will have immediate consequences for Keralite migrants and their families as well as for the state’s population.

Migration has social consequences as well, particularly for families left at home. Surveys of migrants carried out by Professor Irudaya Rajan at the Centre for Development Studies find that almost 90% of remittances are used for subsistence, with 46% supporting education. Migration also affects caste and social status. A professor at the Centre for Diaspora Studies explained that migrants will do low-level work in the Gulf that they disdain doing in Kerala because the income they receive enables them to move up in the social hierarchy back home. In fact, he said “if you see a very big house in Kerala, it’s likely to be a migrant -- or a corrupt official.” Migration is providing both education for migrants’ families and social mobility.One-third of Kerala’s population is directly affected by migration.

Muslims make up about 25% of Kerala’s population – but 40% of the migrants who go to the Gulf. Almost one in every two Muslim households has a family member working in the Gulf. “There are more flights to the Gulf,” one professor observed, “than there are to Chennai.” The growth of ties with the Gulf plays out on Trivandrum’s streets with many Arabic restaurants. My hotel in Trivandrum, for example, offered an Arabic mezza plate – in addition to a mouth-watering array of curries and South Indian dishes. 

Migration from India is overwhelmingly male; about 15% of migrants from Kerala are women, but only half of them are labor migrants. And women are often employed in occupations where they are likely to be invisible, such as domestic workers. Professor Praveen Kodoth of the Centre for Development Studies noted that while male migration is seen as natural, the Indian government has tried to discourage women from migrating, in an effort to protect them from potential abuse. And indeed abuse of domestic workers in the Gulf and elsewhere is well-known. The theme of gender runs throughout the Global Compact on Migration with an emphasis on seeing women migrants as more than victims but also as agents of social change.  

While migration has been mostly a driver of prosperity and growth, there is a dark side and I heard stories of migrants who were abused by their employers in the Gulf – and I was reminded of the Global Compact on Migration’s emphasis on improving recruitment practices and safeguarding conditions for safe and decent work (Objective 6) and suggestions that governments do more to regulate recruitment agencies operating in their jurisdiction.    

The GCM emphasizes the importance of the states of origin in supporting their migrant workers and enhancing consular protection throughout the migration cycle (Objective 14). India doesn’t have a national policy on immigration – its  National Immigration Act dates back to 1922. But the state of Kerala established the Department of Non-Resident Keralite Affairs (NORKA) to support its overseas migrants – before they travel, while they’re overseas, and when they return home. NORKA stays in close contact with the migrants and solicits their views and inputs into their programming. For example, the World Assembly of Keralites has been set up to provide a forum for Keralites in the diaspora to express their views and raise concerns to the government. Objective 16 of the GCM stresses the importance of empowering migrants to realize full inclusion and social cohesion.

The objectives included in the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration are more than carefully-drafted statements hammered out by skilled diplomats. If adopted – and more importantly, if implemented – the will change the lives of millions of migrants in Kerala and around the world. 

Dr. Elizabeth Ferris is a research professor at ISIM. She has worked in the humanitarian sector for 20 years, taught at several US universities and served as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  

[blogisim]

Today’s Refugee Crisis: not a crisis of refugee numbers, but of responsibility-sharing and internal displacement

While political leaders and advocates alike cite record-high levels of displacement in referring to the ‘refugee crisis,’ they are missing the point. We don’t face a crisis because of the high numbers of refugees, but we do face two serious and underreported crises: a crisis of responsibility-sharing and a crisis of internal displacement. Recently the Exodus Institute and Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) organized two symposia to analyze these crises and to try to come up with some solutions.  These meetings also fed directly into the work of the World Refugee Council, which is focusing its work on broad issues of accountability, governance and finance, as well as internal displacement and responsibility-sharing for refugees.

But first, let’s look at the numbers. Just this week, UNHCR announced its latest figures on displacement – reporting that in 2017 there were 68.5 million displaced people in the world, of whom 25.4 million are refugees. UNHCR works with close to 20 million refugees while 5.4 million Palestinian refugees fall under the mandate of another UN agency, UNRWA. 20 million refugees is a large number – too large – but we live in a world of 7.6 billion people. If refugees were distributed equally around the world, it would be a tiny percentage of any country’s population and a manageable number. But refugees are not distributed equally. In fact, 85% of the world’s refugees are hosted by developing countries and more than two-thirds come from just 5 countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia. Additionally, the burden of hosting refugees is similarly unbalanced. Almost 18% of the refugees in the world today are hosted by Turkey (3.5 million), with another 20% hosted by Uganda, Lebanon and Iran.  

In the aftermath of World War II, the leading powers of the world created an international system to respond to refugees, with a binding Convention on refugees and a dedicated UN refugee agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They recognized that it was in their national and collective interests that people forced to flee their countries received the protection and assistance they needed. Having tens of million of people displaced in Europe after the war was a humanitarian concern, but it was also a security issue, a collective security issue. The governments of the world recognized that it was in their collective interests to care for refugees and they saw it as their collective responsibility. Today that commitment to collective responsibility seems to have broken down.   

                  Panelists at the April 2018 Symposium on Refugees and Responsibility Sharing 

New mechanisms for responsibility-sharing are needed. At the Exodus/ISIM Symposium on Responsibility-Sharing for Refugees, participants grappled with how to strengthen mechanisms to share responsibility – so that the burden doesn’t just fall on those countries that happen to be next door to a country experiencing conflict. The Global Compact on Refugees, which is presently being finalized – for adoption in fall 2018 – offers several such mechanisms. Participants in the Exodus Institute/Georgetown Symposium expressed support for those mechanisms, but suggested that we need to go further. For example,  we need more clarity on what responsibility-sharing means  - is it just giving money to countries hosting refugees? Or resettling refugees outside of the area? Or is it also private companies setting up businesses that employ refugees and using other migration mechanisms – such as university scholarships for refugee students? We also need indicators to be able to tell which governments are exercising their responsibility towards refugees and which are not. These – and other – suggestions are being fed into ongoing policy discussions, but more work will be needed to ensure that the good ideas for improving efforts to reform the current system.

And then there’s the crisis of internal displacement. If we go back to the figures, we see that of the 68.5 million people displaced in the world, more than 40 million -- almost two-thirds of the total number -- are displaced within their own countries. They are internally displaced persons (IDPs). They often flee for exactly the same reasons as refugees but they remain within the borders of their countries. Sometimes they choose to stay closer to home, wanting to watch over their property and usually hoping that their displacement will be temporary. Sometimes they’re unable to go very far because of an elderly or disabled relative. Sometimes they simply don’t have the resources to travel or, if they try, they find that  the borders are closed. A couple of years ago, I talked with a young Syrian refugee in Gazientep, Turkey who was teaching English and supporting her mother who had come to Turkey with her. One of her brothers had made it to the Netherlands and another was waiting to take his chances on the risky Mediterranean route. But her sister remained in Aleppo, hiding in in the basement with her four children as the barrel bombs fell. “She’d be safer in Turkey,” I commented, “why doesn’t she come here?” The young Syrian woman replied, “She doesn’t have money to rent a place in Turkey. At least in Syria, she has someplace to stay.” Different members of her family – like many displaced families – made different choices, but those who are displaced within the borders of their countries are often much more risk than those who seek protection elsewhere. 

                      Panelist speaks at the May 2018 Symposium on Internal Displacement

Under international law, it is the responsibility of the national government to care for IDPs, even when that government plays a role in displacing them in the first place, as in Syria and Myanmar. On the global level, rather than an international convention as is the case for refugees, there are important, but legally non-binding Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement for IDPs. Rather than a dedicated UN agency, there are several UN agencies – including UNHCR and IOM – that provide support for IDPs when it is possible. The Exodus/ISIM Symposium on Internal Displacement analyzed possibilities for strengthening international response to IDPs and highlighted the glaring lack of high-level political leadership for IDPs. The Symposium called for the establishment of a High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement and for the appointment of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Internal Displacement. This person would be able to meet with heads of state and bring together UN agencies working on humanitarian responses, long-term developments, conflict resolution and peacebuilding initiatives. It’s not enough to respond to those who are displaced – we need bold action to address the causes which are uprooting people in the first place.

Dr. Elizabeth Ferris is a research professor and ISIM’s acting director. She has worked in the humanitarian sector for 20 years, taught at several US universities and served as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

[blogisim]

The Global Response to Refugees and Migrants: Perspectives from UNGA 2017

Seeking to address current global mobility concerns and to prepare the world to respond for future challenges, the commitments made during the 2016 High-Level Summit for Refugees and Migrants – discussed in my earlier ISIM post – were revisited during UNGA 2017. This year’s meetings of the General Assembly also served as a platform for numerous side-events on a variety of topics of relevance to the situation of refugees and migrants. I was fortunate enough to be invited to participate in some of these events reporting on themes such as climate change, the Sustainable Development Goals and, more directly related to the issue of displacement, the protection-security spectrum informing current approaches to the management of human mobility.

High-Level Meeting on the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants: One Year On

On September 20th, 2017, a special meeting was held to mark the first anniversary of the New York Declaration. Hosted by UNHCR and the Office of the UN Special Representative for International Migration, this UNGA side event also served as a high-level briefing on the previously mentioned Global Compacts that constitute two key commitments of the Declaration.  

Several key UN officials highlighted the need to continue working together towards more equitable ways to share the responsibility for refugees, as well as achieve safe and orderly migration. These included Louise Arbour, UN Special Representative for International Migration, who is responsible for leading the follow-up to the migration-related aspects of the 2016 High-Level Summit. Ms. Arbour underscored the important role of both Compacts in guiding future international community’s efforts to better manage human mobility. She added that global action must be human rights-centered, grounded in reality, and reflective of the needs of displaced populations. 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who served as UN High Commissioner for Refugees between 2005 and 2015, pointed to several priority areas for the year ahead as Member States work to advance the two Compacts: (a) to re-establish the integrity of the refugee protection regime; (b) to develop national and international cooperation mechanisms on human mobility issues; and (c) to ensure greater accountability for those involved in human trafficking. I was struck by the SG’s remarks on what he referred as the “paradoxical and misrepresented” character of human mobility. As an illustrative example he reminded the audience that “the number of refugees that entered Uganda from South Sudan last year was three times greater that the number of those who crossed the central Mediterranean”, a reality close to my heart as someone who has been working with refugees from this region of Africa for over 15 years. However, Mr. Guterrez added, “the situation in the central Mediterranean led to a crisis in public confidence and political debate in many countries, while the situation in Uganda . . . remains largely unreported by the global media.” Highlighting the stark geographical differences in the politics of representations surrounding forced displacement, The SG called for an end to xenophobia, intolerance and unwarranted negative assumptions about displaced groups.

Affirming his presidency’s commitment to the two Global Compacts, President Miroslav Lajčák expressed his confidence that both would be adopted in 2018, urging all concerned to continue the current momentum. “One focus of my presidency is people, and another is human rights,” Mr. Lajčák added.  “People do not lose their human rights when they move. It is essential that we uphold the human rights of all people,” he exhorted the global community joining the SG’s earlier emphasis on human rights protection.

Director General of IOM, William Lacy Swing concluded that “we must marshal our collective efforts to ensure that migration and human mobility take place through safe, regular and orderly means, to protect the human beings at the heart of these journeys and to realize the tremendous benefits that migration can bring”.. His emphasis on migrants as sources of positive opportunities echoed the remarks of the other UN officials participating in the One Year On High-Level Meeting. Their positive outlook was, however, contrasted by the more guarded and, at times, alarmist tone adopted by some other UNGA 2017 attendees. Indeed, outside of the One Year On Meeting, potential links between uncontrolled population flows and the so-called “global terror threat” were often suggested, an issue I will discuss in my next post. 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi noted that the crises that drove the adoption of the New York Declaration have not abated. To the contrary “the need for international protection for those fleeing in search of safety is more compelling than ever,” he added. Mr. Grandi further concluded that the root causes of refugee flows and the triggers of irregular migration are often intertwined; in mixed migratory movements, refugees and migrants often face overlapping risks. Hence the need for both Compacts to be complementary and comprehensive. 

The Global Compact on Refugees will be proposed by the High Commissioner in his annual report to the General Assembly in 2018, and will be considered by the Assembly at its seventy-third session. The General Assembly will also convene an Intergovernmental Conference on International Migration in 2018 with a view to adopting the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The real test of the significance of these normative developments will be the extent to which they can result in concrete action on the ground to find practical solutions to what is now the highest level of humanitarian needs since the Second World War.

Marisa O. Ensor, PhD, LLM, is a GU Faculty Affiliate of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Prior to joining Georgetown she taught at several universities in the US and abroad, including the American University in Cairo’s Center for Migration and Refugee Studies.

[blogisim]

The Global Response to Refugees and Migrants: Perspectives from UNGA 2016

On September 19, 2016 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) – the UN’s main deliberative and representative organ comprising all 193 Member States – hosted a High-Level Summit for Refugees and Migrants.  This unprecedented Summit was a watershed effort to address the large-scale displacement of refugees and migrants that dominates the current humanitarian landscape.  One year later, the need to continue working together towards finding global solutions to better manage human mobility was again underscored at the UNGA 2017, which ran from September 12-29.

I was fortunate to be invited to participate in several of the main migration and refugee-related events being held at UN Headquarters in New York. As a political and socio-legal anthropologist and human rights scholar and advocate with a focus on forced displacement, I have been following these developments with great professional and personal interest.

Here I briefly outline some of the key themes discussed at these events, focusing on the initial High-Level Summit held in 2016. Over the course of the next year, subsequent ISIM posts will report on further developments as the negotiation process of the Global Compacts unfolds.  

The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants

The main outcome of the 2016 High-Level Summit was the unanimous adoption of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. This document responds to the UN Secretary-General’s (SG) call for “collaborative global efforts to be guided by international refugee law, human rights and humanitarian law”.  While not legally binding, the New York Declaration nonetheless represents a global consensus on the need to improve the way in which the international community responds to large movements of refugees and migrants, and manages protracted refugee situations.  I believe that this declaration constitutes a promising development at the normative level, and has the potential to guide the response of the UN system, Member States, civil society and partners as they endeavor to provide day-to-day support to migrants and refugees. Further steps must be taken to translate these initial standards-setting efforts into actual implementation.  

The New York Declaration includes provisions to start negotiations leading to an international conference, to be held in 2018, and the adoption of two Global Compacts: the Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, and the Global Compact for Refugees.  The main areas identified as requiring focused attention include the following:

Protecting the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls whose full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions is to be promoted;

Preventing and responding to sexual and gender-based violence;

Ensuring that all refugee and migrant children start receiving education shortly upon arrival;

Working towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status;

Supporting those countries receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants;

Finding new homes for all refugees identified by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as needing resettlement;

Expanding the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for instance, labor mobility or education schemes; and

Strengthening the global migration governance by bringing the International Organization for Migration (IOM) into the UN system.

Overall, the 2016 New York Declaration reaffirms the importance of the international refugee regime, represents a commitment by Member States to strengthen the global governance of international migration, and constitutes a unique opportunity for creating a more responsible and predictable system for responding to large flows of people on the move

The 2017 High-Level Meeting on the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants – One Year On convened as part of UNGA 2017 that revisited these commitments will be discussed in my next ISIM post.

Marisa O. Ensor, PhD, LLM, is a GU Faculty Affiliate of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Prior to joining Georgetown she taught at several universities in the US and abroad, including the American University in Cairo’s Center for Migration and Refugee Studies.

[blogisim]

The Future of DACA on Labor Day 2017

Like many people on this 2017 Labor Day Weekend, I am consumed with thoughts about the many young immigrants who have temporary legal status as part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program. In the next few days, the White House has announced that it will make a decision about the future of DACA. Will it continue, terminate, or expand? No one yet knows.

On this precipice, the future of more than 800,000 young adults sits. They were brought to the United States as children without legal authorization, and after registering with the federal government via the DACA program, they have a renewable work permit and cannot be deported.

Millions of people and many organizations have called for DACA to continue and be expanded. Some are also behind the Dream Act, introduced in Congress earlier this year. With bipartisan support, the Dream Act offers a path to U.S. citizenship for those who are undocumented, have DACA or Temporary Protected Status, and who graduate from U.S. high schools and attend college, enter the workforce, or enlist in the military. Those supporting this bill argue that while DACA has offered protection and removed obstacles to insure that those who are eligible have a better future than they would have had without it, DACA does not include a path toward lawful permanent residence. The Dream Act will do just that, and I hope that Congress passes it if DACA is ended.

I have met hundreds of DACA recipients. Their stories are about resilience and struggle. They are undergraduates, medical students, young professionals, and others, born in nations near and far. They have lived in the United States for the majority of their lives, and they are like so many of us, seeking a better life than their parents.

Like DACA recipients, others are also seeking security and better lives this Labor Day weekend. Among them are approximately 60,000 Rohingya, an ethnic minority from western Myanmar who – in the last week – have crossed into Bangladesh fleeing violence by Myanmar’s army. The photographs of these Rohingya reveal desperation and hardship, families searching for safety. Then there are the Texans and Louisianans displaced by Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath. For the last eight days, news outlets have described their desperation, determination, and resilience as they attempt to recover, rebuild, and improve their lives.

All these experiences – whether protracted, sudden, and/or unforeseen – demand a humanitarian response that involves combining political, economic, and operational capital in creative ways. Although much work remains to be done, it is time to develop comprehensive humanitarian responses to these situations. So let us expand protections for DACA recipients, assist Bangladesh as the Rohingya enter seeking safety and refuge, and aid the areas and people in Texas and Louisiana as they rebuild their communities affected by Hurricane Harvey. No one would choose to be in these situations, but given that they are, let us remove as many obstacles as possible and lead the way.

Dr. Katharine M. Donato is the Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration, and Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration, in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

[blogisim]

Harvey’s Displaced: A Long Haul to Recovery

The devastation wreaked by Hurricane Harvey fills our TV screens and our twitter feeds. The photos of flooded communities, of people rescued from water-logged homes, and of exhausted first responders are compelling human stories. They generate strong emotions of empathy, compassion and solidarity – emotions in stark contrast to the recent divisiveness of Charlottesville. 

Millions of people have been affected by this hurricane. Thousands – perhaps soon to be tens of thousands – of people are displaced and seeking refuge with family and friends and in shelters. Once again, the United States has a new group of internally displaced persons – IDPs. The Texas IDPs join millions displaced worldwide every year by sudden-onset disasters. Indeed, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 4.5 million people were displaced by disasters in the first six months of 2017. Just in the past month, flooding in South Asia displaced a million people and affected  over 16 million in India, Bangladesh and Nepal.  

Many of the lessons from other disasters are playing out with Hurricane Harvey. For example, we know that most lives are saved in the immediate aftermath of a disaster by local responders. In every sudden-onset disaster, it is local responders – people in the neighborhood -- who pull people to safety – whether from the rubble of an earthquake in Haiti or from suburban homes in Houston. 

We know that while disasters affect rich and poor alike, those who are marginalized and vulnerable before a disaster tend to become even more vulnerable and marginalized afterwards. Losing one’s home is always a horrific experience, but if you don’t have insurance it is catastrophic. Early reports indicate that only about 40% of the economic losses may be covered by insurance and that less than 15% of Houstonians had flood insurance.  

Disasters cause poverty. Last year a World Bank study of 117 countries found that disasters push 26 million people into poverty each year. For people living on the edge – whether in Nepal or in Houston or Rockport -- the economic losses of disasters are catastrophic.

People are displaced suddenly. Harvey wasn’t even a named storm two weeks ago. People leaving their homes in Houston didn’t expect to be displaced and undoubtedly harbor hopes of soon returning to their homes. But experience has shown that although displacement can happen in a flash, finding solutions can be agonizingly slow. People grab a few things to take with them to a shelter, not thinking that this may be all that they will have of ‘home’ for weeks or months or longer. Did they bring their car titles or deeds or lists of passwords to their shelters?  Did they bring treasured baby photos and family mementoes? Did they think to take their children’s immunization records or report cards?

My initial impressions of the Harvey response are positive: government officials were prepared, the Red Cross had pre-positioned supplies and shelters were ready, the community response was impressive. But, believe it or not, disaster response is often the easiest phase of disaster management. Recovery planning is more complex and draws on a different range of governmental actors. It is also a more political process and tends to drag on for far longer than anyone expects. What solutions will be found for people who have lost their homes? Where will they stay while homes are re-built? Will they be able to resume their jobs? Where will their kids go to school? Will priority be given to helping homeowners rebuild (which is almost always the case)? What about renters? Houston is the most ethnically diverse city in the US and has a reputation as a city that welcomes refugees. How will recovery affect undocumented residents of Houston? More broadly, what does this say about the flood insurance program – which has only about $5 billion or so left in its coffers as the program is due for re-authorization by the end of September Where will the funds come from to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by the floods? Will this tragedy trigger renewed interest in looking at aging dams in Texas – and elsewhere?

Unfortunately another lesson from other disasters is that the television cameras and legions of journalists will move on. Even though recovery is a long and painful process, we are unlikely to see the heart-rending human interest stories of people living in crowded temporary accommodations while politicians haggle over funding packages. I wish that we could bottle all the good will, compassion and solidarity now being expressed nationally and globally for Harvey’s victims. I suspect that we could use that bottle of good will later when the news cycles have changed and Texas residents are still struggling to get the help they need. Too often after disasters, people feel abandoned by their governments. I hope that Texas is different.

President Trump said yesterday that Houston would recover very, very quickly.  I hope with all my heart that he is right, but experience suggests that it will be a long tough road to recovery, with important political decisions to be made at every step of the way. We need to mobilize for the long haul. This is going to be a marathon.

Dr. Elizabeth Ferris is a research professor at ISIM, teaching courses on humanitarian crises. She has worked in the humanitarian sector for 20 years, taught at several US universities and served as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

[blogisim]

The Supreme Court, the Trump Administration and the Travel Ban

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow parts of President Trump’s travel ban go into force is troubling for many reasons, not least of which is the harm it potentially poses to refugees. The decision provides that only “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” can enter the United States under the President’s Executive Order (EO) if they are citizens of six countries—Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The Court did not define bona fide relationship, other than to give some non-exhaustive examples (a wife or mother-in-law, employer, university) and to note that a relationship that was derived solely to get around the EO was not bona fide. Interpreting bona fide relationship narrowly, the State Department held that the private voluntary agencies (known as volags) that have cooperative agreements with the State Department for placement and reception of refugees in local communities do not have bona fide relationships with the refugees. On July 13, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that interpretation. Should the case go back to the Supreme Court, it should uphold the 9th Circuit decision in this regard.

The order applies to foreign nationals seeking entry for a broad range of reasons—from tourism to foreign study, employment, family visits and, in the case of refugees, safety from persecution. Refugees from the six countries to which the EO applies (all of which are refugee producing) without immediate family (such as spouses, children and parents) in the U.S. are not admissible under this interpretation. Determining that the network of religious and secular volags that sponsor refugees do not have a close relationship with them flies in the face of the myriad ways that these agencies assist refugees, from identifying local communities to receive them to finding apartments for new arrivals, enrolling children in schools, helping them apply for social security numbers, teaching them English, getting their immunizations, and orienting them to the customs and practices of their new communities. The agencies often contribute their own funds to match the government’s resources. This process begins far before the refugees are ready for admission as the agencies pour over documentation about each refugee family to determine their best fit with local affiliates. Denying that this is a bona fide relationship is a complete abrogation of the reality of this role.

But, to make matters worse, the administration has halted resettlement worldwide, not just from the six countries. As of July 12, refugee admissions had reached 50,000—the cap imposed in the EO. The administration has stated that all refugee admissions except for close family members will cease for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. The EO had intended to halt refugee admissions worldwide for 120 days (and indefinitely for refugees from Syria), supposedly to determine if new security measures were needed. More than 120 days have elapsed since the EO was issued and no such review appears to have been completed during this period, leaving unclear what processing guidelines would be used in FY 2018 when, hopefully, resettlement would presumably restart.

These changes are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s reasoning that people with close ties to the United States should be admitted if they meet other criteria. The United States has long prioritized refugees in life-threatening situations for admission. The ban means that they along with other refugees seeking solutions to what is often protracted displacement will not be able to enter the country despite having been determined to have a well-founded fear of persecution and meeting all other requirements for admission. The lucky ones may be able to reach or remain safely in neighboring countries to which they fled but others could face forcible return home if their hosts—most of which are poor countries already burdened with millions of refugees—grow tired of their presence and U.S. delays in admission.

The Trump administration imposition of a new ceiling on admissions and its refusal to recognize the close relationship of the volags bring to mind policies of an earlier era. A similar logic and outcome applied in the 1930s when the United States shut the door on the admission of thousands of refugees seeking to flee Nazi Germany. At the start of the Great Depression and before the rise of Hitler, President Herbert Hoover issued an EO telling the State Department to be as restrictive as possible in determining which applicants for admission to the United States might become a ‘public charge’—that is, someone in need of public assistance. Visas were issued only to those with substantial financial resources of their own or whose immediate family in the U.S. signed affidavits pledging that they would support the newcomers. Affidavits from more distant relatives were not allowed; nor were the pledges of private organizations that sought to sponsor people for admission to the United States. The policies continued under Franklin Roosevelt’s State Department.

No exception was made for refugees despite the frequent entreaties of Jewish and other organizations as persecution against Jews in Nazi Germany accelerated throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler was happy to see Jews leave the country but he seized all of their financial resources, permitting them only the equivalent of $10 to take with them when they left. Most had no close family members in the United States so the State Department’s refusal to consider the pledges of more distant relatives or private organizations meant few qualified for admission. In addition, the State Department—citing security threats—also tightened up on requirements that all immigrants demonstrate that they were of good moral character and had committed no crimes. For refugees, this meant that they had to obtain a Certificate of Good Conduct from the same Nazi authorities that threatened their lives.

As the full extent of the Holocaust became known, the tragic results of these policies became clear. In the years since the end of World War II, U.S. refugee admission programs have been run as a public-private partnership that takes into account the special needs and traumas that refugees have experienced. Refugees are no longer subject to the public charge exclusions on entry although the security checks have been maintained and expanded.

We know from the experience of the 1930s that unfounded fears about the economic impact of refugees and potential security threats can have dire consequences and cause massive loss of life.  Decades of experience show that the US refugee resettlement program has been successful in protecting refugees as well as the rest of the country exactly because of the bona fide relationship that already exists between refugees and the volags that sponsor them. The Supreme Court should uphold the 9th Circuit decision that the administration’s interpretation of its decision on the resettlement agencies was wrong and direct the administration to restart the refugee program. It may very well save lives and restore what has been continuous US leadership on refugee protection for the past 70 years.

Susan F. Martin is the Donald G. Herzberg Professor Emerita of International Migration, Georgetown University, and formerly served as Executive Director of the US Commission on Immigration Reform.

[blogisim]

Yemen, Libya, and 21st Century Migration Challenges

The 21st century has witnessed complex migration and displacement processes. At the same time that violence and conflict lead to migration and displacement, the search for employment and better economic prospects also drive people to leave their homelands. An intricate web of drivers of out-migration defy uniform policy responses and often result in permanent displacement, worsened life conditions, and little hope of improvement.

Take, for example, the current migration disaster in Libya. Gaddafi, before being toppled as dictator, regularly recruited migrant workers from a variety of African countries to meet his country’s demand for labor. Migration patterns were established. Now, without political stability, Libya’s borders are not monitored and migrants continue to cross into the country. Whether seeking employment or refuge from violence and conflict, many end up at the coastline searching for ways to cross into Europe.  Some end up in detention in appalling conditions even as the European Union is training the Libyan Coast Guard to more effectively prevent migrants from crossing the Mediterranean. Many remain trapped in Libya and are easy prey for criminal smugglers and traffickers. 

The situation in Yemen is even worse, with widespread conflict, hunger and now cholera. Despite the horrific conditions there, migrants are still arriving in Yemen. Mohammed Abdiker, from the International Organization of Migration, recently described it in the Wall Street Journal as a “looming crisis” with hundreds of people arriving every day, even though ongoing violence has displaced almost two million Yemenis. Last year approximately 115,000 people arrived in Yemen and then left for Saudi Arabia searching for work. They include all kinds of people: those fleeing from religious and political conflict, university students without jobs, agricultural workers leaving deteriorating livelihoods due to environmental conditions, women and men. 

The Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat reports that most migrants are from Ethiopia, with the remainder from Somalia, traveling over land and then across dangerous waters into Yemen. What is surprising is that they are arriving at the same time that many people are fleeing because of Yemen’s sustained conflict and worsening humanitarian situation. The Secretariat estimates that more than 180,000 migrants returned to their homelands from Yemen and/or refugees fled to surrounding countries, with an additional two million persons internally displaced inside Yemen’s borders. Such simultaneous bi-directional migration flows illustrate complex global mobility trajectories.  

As in the Libya case, migrants arriving in conflict-ridden Yemen immediately confront situations far worse than those in their homelands. Without money to return home and other resources, they can easily become stuck and encounter chaos, trafficking, and smuggling – and coercion of all sorts – in places that have, at best, little infrastructure and few legitimate government institutions to help them. The situation is desperate and acute. Implementing effective policy responses to protect and aid these migrants is almost impossible given that the Yemen government is on the brink of collapse.

To make matters worse, many are children, who had to drop out of school and are being forced into conflict or early marriage. Because they are also the targets of smugglers and traffickers, IOM Yemen is trying to help by establishing Child-Friendly Spaces designed to reduce the negative effects of these conditions on children. 

This is the 21st century migration landscape -- with people encountering danger, difficulty, and risk at every turn. Yet, neither national governments nor international systems are adequately responding to these more complex patterns of migration and displacement.

Dr. Katharine Donato is the Director of ISIM and the Donald G. Herzberg Chair in International Migration in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service