Asylum lies at the heart of the international refugee protection regime. Yet, today, most states in the developed world implement a range of deterrence measures designed to prevent access to asylum on their territories. With particular attention to Europe’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis, this paper categorizes contemporary deterrence policies. It then questions the sustainability and effectiveness of such policies. A number of deterrence measures do not conform with refugee and human rights law, rendering the refugee protection regime vulnerable to collapse. Finally, this article suggests some ways forward to address these problems. It discusses the partial success of legal challenges to deterrence measures and opportunities for alternative avenues to access protection. Ultimately, however, it argues that the viability of the refugee protection regime requires collective action and international burden-sharing.
Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Research Director at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and adjunct Professor of Law at Aarhus University, discusses his paper, “The End of the Deterrence Paradigm? Future Directions for Global Refugee Policy.” The paper...
President Trump’s “shock and awe” strategy in the form of multiple executive orders on immigration and refugees creates three major risks: first, that many of the most damaging provisions will evade scrutiny in the glare of more high profile issues like building an unnecessary and unsustainable 2,000 mile border wall; second, that the cynical rationale for the orders (security and safety) will actually stick, if repeated enough times, and; third, that some portion of this agenda may actually be implemented at permanent cost to our nation’s well-being, core values and identity.
This paper provides an overview of contemporary, empirical scholarship on clandestine migration facilitation. It argues clandestine migration is not merely the domain of criminal groups. Rather, it also involves protection mechanisms crafted within migrant and refugee communities. Yet amid concerns over national and border security, and the reemergence of nationalism, said strategies have become increasingly stigmatized and perceived as an inherently criminal activity. This paper constitutes an attempt to rethink the framework in everyday narratives of irregular migration facilitation.
The first week of the new Trump administration was a turbulent one, marked by a flurry of Presidential Executive Orders, Memoranda and Proclamations. Three of the Executive Orders focused on issues of migration and security, and have attracted much media...
President Trump signed three executive orders the week of January 23 which offend the dignity and threaten the rights of immigrants and refugees both in the United States and globally. On January 25 at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),...
Donald Kerwin, CMS' Executive Director, reflects on the 2016 Catholic Immigrant Integration Initiative Conference and the Catholic Church's commitment to migrants and refugees as President Trump takes offices.
In this episode, Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ, chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), discusses violations of law and legal procedures by border officials, CBP and USCIS’ reliance on virtual interviews, the importance of legal representation in asylum cases, and the detention of mothers and children. Fr. Reese also discusses the global crisis in refugee protection and the proposals to deny the admission of refugees based on religion and nationality.
In this essay, Alan M. Kraut, University Professor of History at American University, traces the origin of the “Make America Great Again” slogan to nativists of the early 20th century.
This paper seeks to develop a working definition of the externalization of migration controls and how such externalization of the border implicates the human rights of migrants, and asylum seekers in particular.