The
migrant crisis in North and South America, not unlike the European
crisis before it, has brought into question the practicality of
long-used terms like “refugee” and “economic migrant.” The United
Nation’s 1951 Refugee Convention defined a refugee as a person who has
“a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion.” In the 1980 Refugee Act, Congress consecrated that description
in U.S. law as well. However, the 1951 definition was created to
address the ferments of the early Cold War, especially the emigration of
Soviet protestors. These days most migrants aren’t fleeing
authoritative regimes that are out to get them. Nor are they merely
seeking better economic opportunities. Rather, they are fleeing from
states that have collapsed or that are so brittle that life has become
unbearable for their citizens. Jon Purizhansky of Buffalo, NY recognizes the problems inherent in adhering to outdated terminology.
What
Europe witnessed in 2015 and what much of the Americas are experiencing
today are not simply refugee currents or market-driven population
drifts but rather migration for the sole purpose of survival. From
2003-2010, roughly two million people from Zimbabwe fled to South Africa
and other proximal states. Many of them sought to escape inflation,
bandits, and food scarcity, namely, the economic consequences of the
elemental political situation, as opposed to explicit political
persecution. Because most of these migrants could neither be described
as either refugees or economic migrants, humanitarian aid surrounding
the crisis was hindered. Jon Purizhansky maintains that these outdated conventions and definitions need to be re-examined.
A
great number of the migrants who arrived in Europe in 2015, chiefly
those from Syria, were undeniably refugees under the 1951 Refugee
Convention. Other refugees, including some Kosovars and Albanians who
used the Balkan paths toward Germany along with the Syrians, were simply
economic migrants. But large numbers of those traversing the Aegean
were escaping delicate states such as Iraq and Afghanistan. European
governments were mostly unsure of how to label these migrants. In the
first few months of 2019, 46% of Iraqi asylum seekers were recognized in
Germany, compared with 13% in the UK.
Jon Purizhansky
: Petitioners from failed or delicate Middle Eastern or sub-Saharan
African countries faced, and continue to face, a recognition lottery of
sorts whose outcome depends on whether judges and bureaucrats are
prepared to reconcile today’s circumstances with Cold War categories.
However, few European governments had any desire to abandon the old
language and categories. Governments led by right-of-center parties
didn’t wish to risk exposing themselves to possibly increased
obligations and those led by left-of-center parties didn’t wish to risk
threatening the 1951 Refugee Convention.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment