By Raluca Bejan

Irregular migrant entries within the European Union increased by 546 per cent in 2015. The instability in the Middle East, particularly the Syrian war, led to 1,015,078 sea arrivals on the Italian and Greek coasts.

This influx prompted the European Commission to adopt two decisions intended to transfer 120,000 people to the least affected EU member states from the countries struggling to provide timely assistance with asylum claims: 15,600 people from Italy, 50,400 from Greece, and 54,000 from Hungary.

The relocations were meant to be distributed over the following two years, 2016 and 2017, on a mandatory basis and through an equalizing formula based on four national indicators: GDP (40 per cent), population size (40 per cent), unemployment rate (10 per cent) and past numbers of asylum applications (10 per cent).

It’s important to note that relocation is different from resettlement. Resettlement refers to the transfer to an EU state of non-EU/stateless people in need of international protection, whereas relocation refers to the transfer of persons already in Europe to another member state.

Spain and Germany initially contested the quota agreements. Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.K. were in favour of resettlement efforts. Most of the Eastern Bloc countries refused by invoking a lack of consensus among member states and by emphasising the need for voluntary participation in the relocation scheme.

Challenged in court

The matter ended up in court by December 2015, with Hungary and Slovakia launching two separate claims at the EU Court of Justice contesting the validity of the decisions.

The claims were dismissed by the Court of Justice in July 2017. Subsequently, in October 2019, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were found to have breached EU law by refusing to participate in the relocation scheme.

The question of relocation fell out of the public eye throughout most of 2018 and 2019, as sea arrivals diminished significantly after the signing of the EU-Turkey deal in March 2016. For six billion euros and the promise of EU integration, Turkey was now accepting irregular migrants who had made it to Greece

The relocation matter returned to public attention this September, when Germany, France, Italy and Malta called for the implementation of a new system (known as the Malta Declaration) to automatically distribute migrants across the EU.

The EU’s interior ministers met in Luxembourg in October to discuss the “state of play on migration” and the newly proposed agreement.

The Malta proposal showed low uptake. Only three additional countries signed onto it: Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg, totalling seven countries out of 28 EU member states to endorse the new mechanism.

The plan intended to fast-track screening and redistribution processes but remained vague in essence.

Expedited streamlining procedures (for example, allotting a maximum of four weeks to pledge relocation commitments) will have an insignificant impact. That’s because the countries’ reluctance to participate in the scheme has little to do with the speed of the process and everything to do with varied national interpretations of what constitutes fair responsibility-sharing.

A philosophical problem 
 
I conducted a qualitative study in Romania in the spring of 2019, examining how Romanian elected representatives interpret the idea of shared responsibility among EU member states in relation to the union’s relocation system.

Preliminary findings show that the relocation scheme was generally seen as inefficient in measuring whether member states had the economic capacity to welcome asylum-seekers.

Participants argued that different qualitative and quantitative indicators needed to be included to better capture national idiosyncrasies. Those included a state’s system of service provisions and its administrative structure for managing migration. They also argued that refugees’ preferences needed to be taken into account when choosing their respective countries, and that there needed to be greater consideration of the economic capacity of a member state.

The relocation scheme was drafted on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), according to the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, which stated in its provisions that, "“In the event of one or more member states being confronted by an emergency situation characterized by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council … may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the member states concerned.”

Implicit here is the idea that member states are expected to show solidarity in emergency situations and that solidarity efforts should be equally shared by all.

The ideological debate, however, is about commonly agreeing on what constitutes an equal share of responsibility and what type of indicators are best suited to reflect a fair and equitable distributive scheme.

Why some indicators and not others?

The GDP per capita measurement was most likely chosen to reflect national wealth. Yet the GDP can be high because the rich are so rich that they pull up the average measurement, statistically speaking. It mostly accounts for marketed economic activity and not economic quality.

The GDP purchasing power parity, which divides national income per population while considering living costs, or GDP per hours worked, which divides national income by the number of countrywide working hours, might be better fitted measures to gauge a country’s economic performance.

The national unemployment rate was the second economic indicator selected in the scheme. Yet unemployment inaccurately reflects the living standard in a society.

Romania, for example, has a low unemployment rate, if compared with other EU member states. At 3.9 per cent, it’s four times lower than Greece’s unemployment rate, which sits at 16.9 per cent. However, half of the population in Romania works for minimum wage. A minimum wage indicator would therefore be better suited to account for the economic capacity of the poorer member states.

What’s population got to do with it? 
 
As for the demographic measure, it is unclear why states with larger populations are seen as better equipped to settle refugees. Is it because newcomers would mingle among nationals and become less visible in high-density places?

The incentive indicator, which considers a state’s past number of asylum applications, does little in the equation besides dividing the “good” versus the “bad” nations among the EU member states. It fails to take into account the difficulties in settling migrants, such as the lack of national migrant integration schemes.

Member states aren’t equal at the EU table. To achieve fairness, any efforts to transfer people in need of international protection must proportionally rather than equally distribute responsibility.

No workable policy has truly addressed the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the EU borders. That’s mostly because of the EU’s deep ideological divisions over what constitutes, and what should constitute, a fair method of sharing responsibility for migrants.

Consensus on solidarity efforts and on how responsibility should be shared and implemented might lead to less political friction and more fruitful co-operation in the EU.

(Raluca Bejan is Assistant Professor, Social Policy, St. Thomas University (Canada))

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-eu-countries-are-struggling-to-relocate-migrants-124827"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Raluca Bejan Irregular migrant entries within the European Union increased by 546 per cent in 2015. The instability in the Middle East, particularly the Syrian war, led to 1,015,078 sea arrivals on the Italian and Greek coasts.

By Raluca Bejan Irregular migrant entries within the European Union increased by 546 per cent in 2015. The instability in the Middle East, particularly the Syrian war, led to 1,015,078 sea arrivals on the Italian and Greek coasts. This influx prompted the European Commission to adopt two decisions intended to transfer 120,000 people to the least affected EU member states from the countries struggling to provide timely assistance with asylum claims: 15,600 people from Italy, 50,400 from Greece, and 54,000 from Hungary. The relocations were meant to be distributed over the following two years, 2016 and 2017, on a mandatory basis and through an equalizing formula based on four national indicators: GDP (40 per cent), population size (40 per cent), unemployment rate (10 per cent) and past numbers of asylum applications (10 per cent). It’s important to note that relocation is different from resettlement. Resettlement refers to the transfer to an EU state of non-EU/stateless people in need of international protection, whereas relocation refers to the transfer of persons already in Europe to another member state. Spain and Germany initially contested the quota agreements. Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.K. were in favour of resettlement efforts. Most of the Eastern Bloc countries refused by invoking a lack of consensus among member states and by emphasising the need for voluntary participation in the relocation scheme. Challenged in court The matter ended up in court by December 2015, with Hungary and Slovakia launching two separate claims at the EU Court of Justice contesting the validity of the decisions. The claims were dismissed by the Court of Justice in July 2017. Subsequently, in October 2019, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were found to have breached EU law by refusing to participate in the relocation scheme. The question of relocation fell out of the public eye throughout most of 2018 and 2019, as sea arrivals diminished significantly after the signing of the EU-Turkey deal in March 2016. For six billion euros and the promise of EU integration, Turkey was now accepting irregular migrants who had made it to Greece The relocation matter returned to public attention this September, when Germany, France, Italy and Malta called for the implementation of a new system (known as the Malta Declaration) to automatically distribute migrants across the EU. The EU’s interior ministers met in Luxembourg in October to discuss the “state of play on migration” and the newly proposed agreement. The Malta proposal showed low uptake. Only three additional countries signed onto it: Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg, totalling seven countries out of 28 EU member states to endorse the new mechanism. The plan intended to fast-track screening and redistribution processes but remained vague in essence. Expedited streamlining procedures (for example, allotting a maximum of four weeks to pledge relocation commitments) will have an insignificant impact. That’s because the countries’ reluctance to participate in the scheme has little to do with the speed of the process and everything to do with varied national interpretations of what constitutes fair responsibility-sharing. A philosophical problem I conducted a qualitative study in Romania in the spring of 2019, examining how Romanian elected representatives interpret the idea of shared responsibility among EU member states in relation to the union’s relocation system. Preliminary findings show that the relocation scheme was generally seen as inefficient in measuring whether member states had the economic capacity to welcome asylum-seekers. Participants argued that different qualitative and quantitative indicators needed to be included to better capture national idiosyncrasies. Those included a state’s system of service provisions and its administrative structure for managing migration. They also argued that refugees’ preferences needed to be taken into account when choosing their respective countries, and that there needed to be greater consideration of the economic capacity of a member state. The relocation scheme was drafted on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), according to the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, which stated in its provisions that, "“In the event of one or more member states being confronted by an emergency situation characterized by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council … may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the member states concerned.” Implicit here is the idea that member states are expected to show solidarity in emergency situations and that solidarity efforts should be equally shared by all. The ideological debate, however, is about commonly agreeing on what constitutes an equal share of responsibility and what type of indicators are best suited to reflect a fair and equitable distributive scheme. Why some indicators and not others? The GDP per capita measurement was most likely chosen to reflect national wealth. Yet the GDP can be high because the rich are so rich that they pull up the average measurement, statistically speaking. It mostly accounts for marketed economic activity and not economic quality. The GDP purchasing power parity, which divides national income per population while considering living costs, or GDP per hours worked, which divides national income by the number of countrywide working hours, might be better fitted measures to gauge a country’s economic performance. The national unemployment rate was the second economic indicator selected in the scheme. Yet unemployment inaccurately reflects the living standard in a society. Romania, for example, has a low unemployment rate, if compared with other EU member states. At 3.9 per cent, it’s four times lower than Greece’s unemployment rate, which sits at 16.9 per cent. However, half of the population in Romania works for minimum wage. A minimum wage indicator would therefore be better suited to account for the economic capacity of the poorer member states. What’s population got to do with it? As for the demographic measure, it is unclear why states with larger populations are seen as better equipped to settle refugees. Is it because newcomers would mingle among nationals and become less visible in high-density places? The incentive indicator, which considers a state’s past number of asylum applications, does little in the equation besides dividing the “good” versus the “bad” nations among the EU member states. It fails to take into account the difficulties in settling migrants, such as the lack of national migrant integration schemes. Member states aren’t equal at the EU table. To achieve fairness, any efforts to transfer people in need of international protection must proportionally rather than equally distribute responsibility. No workable policy has truly addressed the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the EU borders. That’s mostly because of the EU’s deep ideological divisions over what constitutes, and what should constitute, a fair method of sharing responsibility for migrants. Consensus on solidarity efforts and on how responsibility should be shared and implemented might lead to less political friction and more fruitful co-operation in the EU. (Raluca Bejan is Assistant Professor, Social Policy, St. Thomas University (Canada)) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why some EU countries are struggling to relocate migrants

A former military camp on the outskirts of Athens is now reaching full capacity as it serves as a temporary home to almost 1,000 asylum seekers, with many facing an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/greece-approves-controversial-migration-law-259324">uncertain and prolonged wait</a> while their asylum status is determined.

As numbers at the camp have swelled in recent months, dozens of new containers have been added to accommodate the new additions, the majority of whom are families hailing from Afghanistan.

Camps like this provide a stop-gap where asylum seekers are transferred from Greek islands and wait for months for a decision on their application.

Gazal Tajik arrived here with her husband and three children in 2018, but will be stuck until May 2021 for a final outcome on their status.

"I want to leave, [and with] my child go to another country and I [hope to] have one house, my child could go to school and university and I find a good job and my husband finds one. I just want a normal life. I don't want to live in a camp," said Tajik.

Most of the asylum seekers arrive in Greece in an attempt to move onwards to a northern European country.

The Greek government says the asylum system has been strained by a backlog of some 68,000 requests, and as the country slowly recovers from a devastating economic crisis, unemployment figures remain high.

With asylum seekers spending months or even years in camps, integration for many remains a distant option.

"The more we develop the possibility for them to access the labour market, to learn Greek, the more we create the conditions for them to really have a choice. If we don't provide these basic tools, then it's very difficult to make a choice. You don't have much of a choice." said Gianluca Rocco, International Organization for Migration (IOM) Chief of Mission in Greece.

The government says accelerating asylum procedures is the main aim of legislation that was approved on Thursday, which would expedite the return of people whose asylum claims are rejected.

The new bill also sets stricter criteria for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/greece-steps-up-migrant-transfers-after-lesbos-clashes-252825">asylum seekers</a>, a move the government hopes will deter those who are not entitled to asylum from trying to reach Greece.

According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, over 25,000 migrants and refugees have reached the Greek islands since August, with this number accounting for over half of the total sea arrivals in Greece since the beginning of the year.

Europe's Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that camps on the Greek islands are on the edge of catastrophe as numbers continue to increase.

Several Greek and international humanitarian groups, including the U.N. Refugee Agency, have criticized the new law, warning it could lift some of the protections which are in place for asylum seekers.

A former military camp on the outskirts of Athens is now reaching full capacity as it serves as a temporary home to almost 1,000 asylum seekers, with many facing an uncertain and prolonged wait while their asylum status is determined.

A former military camp on the outskirts of Athens is now reaching full capacity as it serves as a temporary home to almost 1,000 asylum seekers, with many facing an uncertain and prolonged wait while their asylum status is determined. As numbers at the camp have swelled in recent months, dozens of new containers have been added to accommodate the new additions, the majority of whom are families hailing from Afghanistan. Camps like this provide a stop-gap where asylum seekers are transferred from Greek islands and wait for months for a decision on their application. Gazal Tajik arrived here with her husband and three children in 2018, but will be stuck until May 2021 for a final outcome on their status. "I want to leave, [and with] my child go to another country and I [hope to] have one house, my child could go to school and university and I find a good job and my husband finds one. I just want a normal life. I don't want to live in a camp," said Tajik. Most of the asylum seekers arrive in Greece in an attempt to move onwards to a northern European country. The Greek government says the asylum system has been strained by a backlog of some 68,000 requests, and as the country slowly recovers from a devastating economic crisis, unemployment figures remain high. With asylum seekers spending months or even years in camps, integration for many remains a distant option. "The more we develop the possibility for them to access the labour market, to learn Greek, the more we create the conditions for them to really have a choice. If we don't provide these basic tools, then it's very difficult to make a choice. You don't have much of a choice." said Gianluca Rocco, International Organization for Migration (IOM) Chief of Mission in Greece. The government says accelerating asylum procedures is the main aim of legislation that was approved on Thursday, which would expedite the return of people whose asylum claims are rejected. The new bill also sets stricter criteria for asylum seekers, a move the government hopes will deter those who are not entitled to asylum from trying to reach Greece. According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, over 25,000 migrants and refugees have reached the Greek islands since August, with this number accounting for over half of the total sea arrivals in Greece since the beginning of the year. Europe's Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that camps on the Greek islands are on the edge of catastrophe as numbers continue to increase. Several Greek and international humanitarian groups, including the U.N. Refugee Agency, have criticized the new law, warning it could lift some of the protections which are in place for asylum seekers.

Greek camps near capacity as refugees face long wait for asylum

Bangladesh said Sunday plans to relocate thousands of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-nations-chief-urges-myanmar-to-ensure-safe-return-of-rohingya-259659">Rohingya living in overcrowded refugee camps</a> to a remote island were "uncertain" after authorities failed to gain support from UN agencies.

Dhaka had wanted to begin its long-held plan this month to move 100,000 people to the mud-silt island of Bhashan Char, amid growing frustration with the presence of the squalid tent settlements in its southeastern border towns.

Bangladesh has said thousands of Rohingya families have volunteered to relocate, with some 3,500 of the Muslim minority due to be moved between mid-November to February during calm seas.

But the plan was&nbsp;in doubt as the U.N. has not supported the relocation so far, Bangladesh disaster management and relief minister Enamur Rahman told AFP.

"This has become uncertain," Rahman said of the relocation to the island, which takes around three hours to reach by boat.

"They (U.N. agencies) still haven't agreed to the relocation plan."

Aid agencies including the UN refugee agency UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the World Food Program (WFP), which held meetings with the government, told him the island was "isolated" and "flood-prone".

The agencies set out a list of conditions that had to be met, including a regular shipping service between the islet in the Bay of Bengal and the mainland, Rahman added.

The organisations provide humanitarian aid to the nearly one million Rohingya in the vast camps, including 740,000 who fled a military crackdown in Myanmar in August 2017.

"We won't do anything forcefully," he said, adding that at least two ships were set to ply the waters between the site and the mainland.

A U.N. official told AFP on Sunday that "U.N. agencies cannot support a move for which (they) have no technical information".

Dhaka is due to hold another round of talks with the agencies on Wednesday, Rahman said.

Global activist group Fortify Rights said last month it interviewed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nearly-400-rohingya-return-to-myanmar-from-bangladesh-embassy-says-259097">14 Rohingya at three camps</a>, including some who appeared on lists of refugees allegedly willing to go, and found none had been consulted "and all opposed it".

Other groups have also expressed misgivings about moving people to the island, which is regularly hit by devastating cyclones.

Bangladesh said Sunday plans to relocate thousands of Rohingya living in overcrowded refugee camps to a remote island were "uncertain" after authorities failed to gain support from UN agencies.

Bangladesh said Sunday plans to relocate thousands of Rohingya living in overcrowded refugee camps to a remote island were "uncertain" after authorities failed to gain support from UN agencies. Dhaka had wanted to begin its long-held plan this month to move 100,000 people to the mud-silt island of Bhashan Char, amid growing frustration with the presence of the squalid tent settlements in its southeastern border towns. Bangladesh has said thousands of Rohingya families have volunteered to relocate, with some 3,500 of the Muslim minority due to be moved between mid-November to February during calm seas. But the plan was in doubt as the U.N. has not supported the relocation so far, Bangladesh disaster management and relief minister Enamur Rahman told AFP. "This has become uncertain," Rahman said of the relocation to the island, which takes around three hours to reach by boat. "They (U.N. agencies) still haven't agreed to the relocation plan." Aid agencies including the UN refugee agency UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the World Food Program (WFP), which held meetings with the government, told him the island was "isolated" and "flood-prone". The agencies set out a list of conditions that had to be met, including a regular shipping service between the islet in the Bay of Bengal and the mainland, Rahman added. The organisations provide humanitarian aid to the nearly one million Rohingya in the vast camps, including 740,000 who fled a military crackdown in Myanmar in August 2017. "We won't do anything forcefully," he said, adding that at least two ships were set to ply the waters between the site and the mainland. A U.N. official told AFP on Sunday that "U.N. agencies cannot support a move for which (they) have no technical information". Dhaka is due to hold another round of talks with the agencies on Wednesday, Rahman said. Global activist group Fortify Rights said last month it interviewed 14 Rohingya at three camps, including some who appeared on lists of refugees allegedly willing to go, and found none had been consulted "and all opposed it". Other groups have also expressed misgivings about moving people to the island, which is regularly hit by devastating cyclones.

Bangladesh Rohingya island relocation 'uncertain' after United Nations doubts

Bangladesh police arrested a Rohingya man with $5 million of methamphetamine pills in their biggest narcotics haul this year, officials said Monday.

Special police staged a raid on a beach in the Cox's Bazar district on the border with Myanmar on Sunday following a tip that a trawler carrying the drugs would land there, a spokesman said.

The spokesman said 800,000 pills were found in sacks in the trawler and one Rohingya suspect was detained while several others escaped.

Some 740,000 Rohingya Muslims flooded across the border after a Myanmar military clampdown in August 2017 and drug dealing has become a growing problem in the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar where they live.

The seizure was the biggest made this year of the methamphetamine pills, known as yaba, which have become a popular drug among young people in the nation of 168 million.

Since a crackdown was launched last year, more than 500 suspected drug traffickers -- including at least 25 Rohingya -- have been shot dead by police and security forces. 
&nbsp;

Bangladesh police arrested a Rohingya man with $5 million of methamphetamine pills in their biggest narcotics haul this year, officials said Monday. Special police staged a raid on a beach in the Cox's Bazar district on the border with Myanmar on Sunday following a tip that a trawler carrying the drugs would land there, a spokesman said.

Bangladesh police arrested a Rohingya man with $5 million of methamphetamine pills in their biggest narcotics haul this year, officials said Monday. Special police staged a raid on a beach in the Cox's Bazar district on the border with Myanmar on Sunday following a tip that a trawler carrying the drugs would land there, a spokesman said. The spokesman said 800,000 pills were found in sacks in the trawler and one Rohingya suspect was detained while several others escaped. Some 740,000 Rohingya Muslims flooded across the border after a Myanmar military clampdown in August 2017 and drug dealing has become a growing problem in the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar where they live. The seizure was the biggest made this year of the methamphetamine pills, known as yaba, which have become a popular drug among young people in the nation of 168 million. Since a crackdown was launched last year, more than 500 suspected drug traffickers -- including at least 25 Rohingya -- have been shot dead by police and security forces.

$5 million drug haul as Rohingya detained in Bangladesh

Some 500 Syrian Kurds have entered neighbouring Iraqi Kurdistan over the past four days fleeing a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-pushes-offensive-in-syria-despite-sanctions-and-calls-to-stop-256184">Turkish invasion</a> now entering its second week, officials said on Wednesday.

The refugees were taken to camps in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, an official in the border province of Dohuk told AFP.

Iraqi Kurdistan previously hosted more than one million Iraqis who fled fighting with the jihadists of the Islamic State group between 2014 and 2017.

NGOs operating in the region said they had been on alert since Ankara launched its invasion of northern Syria on October 9.

On Saturday evening, 182 Syrian Kurds started crossing the border into Iraqi Kurdistan "to escape bombardments in northeastern Syria", the International Organization for Migration said.

Dohuk province humanitarian affairs chief Ismail Ahmed said they were "Syrian Kurds already living in Iraqi Kurdistan, who went to visit relatives in Syria before returning because of the bombardments."

On Wednesday, fresh fighting was reported in northern Syria pitting <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-pushes-offensive-in-syria-despite-sanctions-and-calls-to-stop-256184">Turkey's Syrian proxies against Kurdish forces</a> backed by the Syrian army.&nbsp;

Damascus deployed troops to Kurdish-held areas that had been outside its control since 2012 under an accord with Kurdish authorities announced on Sunday.

Some 500 Syrian Kurds have entered neighbouring Iraqi Kurdistan over the past four days fleeing a Turkish invasion now entering its second week, officials said on Wednesday.

Some 500 Syrian Kurds have entered neighbouring Iraqi Kurdistan over the past four days fleeing a Turkish invasion now entering its second week, officials said on Wednesday. The refugees were taken to camps in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, an official in the border province of Dohuk told AFP. Iraqi Kurdistan previously hosted more than one million Iraqis who fled fighting with the jihadists of the Islamic State group between 2014 and 2017. NGOs operating in the region said they had been on alert since Ankara launched its invasion of northern Syria on October 9. On Saturday evening, 182 Syrian Kurds started crossing the border into Iraqi Kurdistan "to escape bombardments in northeastern Syria", the International Organization for Migration said. Dohuk province humanitarian affairs chief Ismail Ahmed said they were "Syrian Kurds already living in Iraqi Kurdistan, who went to visit relatives in Syria before returning because of the bombardments." On Wednesday, fresh fighting was reported in northern Syria pitting Turkey's Syrian proxies against Kurdish forces backed by the Syrian army. Damascus deployed troops to Kurdish-held areas that had been outside its control since 2012 under an accord with Kurdish authorities announced on Sunday.

Hundreds of Syria Kurds seek refuge in Iraq

Turkey angrily rejected on October 10, international criticism of its attack on a Kurdish militia in Syria, reporting progress by its forces on the second day of an operation that world powers fear could further destabilise a region in turmoil.

Turkey Invades Syria: Erdogan threatens to send Syrian refugees to Europe

U.S. asylum seekers camped out in a dangerous Mexican border town occupied a bridge to Brownsville, Texas on Thursday (October 10), leading to the closure of the crossing.

Migrant families block U.S.-mexico border bridge

The Trump administration said on Thursday it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee program.

In a move immediately decried by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-border-crossings-plunge-but-immigration-raids-draw-fire-241783">immigrant</a> advocates as an affront to the nation's humanitarian commitments, the administration said it had to shift focus to processing a backlog of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims, most of which are filed by migrants from Central America crossing the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-treasurys-mnuchin-says-mexico-immigration-deal-fixes-problems-225469">US-Mexico border</a>.

"The current burdens on the US&nbsp;immigration system must be alleviated before it is again possible to resettle a large number of refugees," the State Department said in a statement.

At the same time, President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying his administration would seek the approval of state and local governments to resettle refugees in their communities, in a shift for a federally directed program.

Trump has made cutting immigration a centerpiece of his presidency.

One of his first acts after assuming office in January 2017 was to issue an order capping the maximum number of refugees that year at 50,000, less than half the number former President Barack Obama had set a few months earlier.

The proposed new number includes specific carve-outs for US&nbsp;national security and foreign policy interests, a senior administration official told reporters.

Of the proposed 18,000 spots, 4,000 would be reserved for Iraqis, 5,000 for those fleeing religious persecution and 1,500 for people from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

That leaves 7,500, or roughly 40 per cent, for all others.

When reports began circulating about plans to dramatically cut resettlement, the administration faced public criticism from evangelical leaders who said an agenda supporting religious freedom around the world should go hand in hand with protection for persecuted refugees.

A senior administration official discussing the move on Thursday said that the specific allocation for religious minorities would be an improvement over previous years where broad allocations were made per region.

Dwindling program

The refugee cap was whittled down to 45,000 for 2018 and 30,000 for 2019, over the objections of senior officials in the Department of Defense, who view the program as crucial to rewarding and building allies in US&nbsp;military campaigns oversees.

Under US&nbsp;law, the president must consult Congress before finalizing the annual number of refugees it plans to accept but the determination is ultimately set by the White House.

The reduction comes at a time when there are nearly 71 million displaced people around the world, many of them refugees who have been waiting years in limbo for a chance at resettlement.

Beneficiaries of the US&nbsp;program are meant to include people whose lives are in danger for assisting the US&nbsp;military, orphaned children, and victims of female genital mutilation as well as many other fleeing civil strife and war.

Tens of thousands of refugees are in the pipeline for arrival to the United States, many with applications far along in the approval and vetting process.

But a drastic reduction in the overall numbers, as well as the allotments for particular groups, could mean many of them will likely miss the chance to come to the country in the 2020 fiscal year.

The senior administration official said refugee arrivals, which had been temporarily suspended pending the release of the new resettlement numbers, should resume on October 22.

While a short suspension is typical, the weeks-long halt has left many refugees who had already booked their flights stranded.

With the focus on the influx of migrants at the southern border, the administration has signed a series of bilateral deals in recent weeks that seek to push asylum seekers from Central America back to the region to apply for refuge in neighboring countries instead of in the United States.

Kevin McAleenan, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement the current refugee proposal, with nearly 10 per cent of slots reserved for the northern triangle countries,&nbsp;offers people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras "the opportunity to seek refugee status close to home, rather than embark on a dangerous and often futile journey."

Local say

The President's companion executive order also potentially limits the places where those that are accepted can be resettled.

In the order, he said refugees should only be placed where state and local governments agree to receive them.

"State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available," the order said, "which maximizes the likelihood refugees placed in the area will become self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance."

The administration said refugee resettlement was a drain on government resources but immigration experts said new arrivals, who come with a legal status, often quickly fill jobs and contribute to local tax revenues.

Mark Hetfield, chief executive of Jewish non-profit refugee assistance organization HIAS said the executive order was an attempt by Trump to "allow governors and mayors to imitate his own refugee ban, state by state and town by town."

The Trump administration said on Thursday it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee program.

The Trump administration said on Thursday it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee program. In a move immediately decried by immigrant advocates as an affront to the nation's humanitarian commitments, the administration said it had to shift focus to processing a backlog of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims, most of which are filed by migrants from Central America crossing the US-Mexico border. "The current burdens on the US immigration system must be alleviated before it is again possible to resettle a large number of refugees," the State Department said in a statement. At the same time, President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying his administration would seek the approval of state and local governments to resettle refugees in their communities, in a shift for a federally directed program. Trump has made cutting immigration a centerpiece of his presidency. One of his first acts after assuming office in January 2017 was to issue an order capping the maximum number of refugees that year at 50,000, less than half the number former President Barack Obama had set a few months earlier. The proposed new number includes specific carve-outs for US national security and foreign policy interests, a senior administration official told reporters. Of the proposed 18,000 spots, 4,000 would be reserved for Iraqis, 5,000 for those fleeing religious persecution and 1,500 for people from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. That leaves 7,500, or roughly 40 per cent, for all others. When reports began circulating about plans to dramatically cut resettlement, the administration faced public criticism from evangelical leaders who said an agenda supporting religious freedom around the world should go hand in hand with protection for persecuted refugees. A senior administration official discussing the move on Thursday said that the specific allocation for religious minorities would be an improvement over previous years where broad allocations were made per region. Dwindling program The refugee cap was whittled down to 45,000 for 2018 and 30,000 for 2019, over the objections of senior officials in the Department of Defense, who view the program as crucial to rewarding and building allies in US military campaigns oversees. Under US law, the president must consult Congress before finalizing the annual number of refugees it plans to accept but the determination is ultimately set by the White House. The reduction comes at a time when there are nearly 71 million displaced people around the world, many of them refugees who have been waiting years in limbo for a chance at resettlement. Beneficiaries of the US program are meant to include people whose lives are in danger for assisting the US military, orphaned children, and victims of female genital mutilation as well as many other fleeing civil strife and war. Tens of thousands of refugees are in the pipeline for arrival to the United States, many with applications far along in the approval and vetting process. But a drastic reduction in the overall numbers, as well as the allotments for particular groups, could mean many of them will likely miss the chance to come to the country in the 2020 fiscal year. The senior administration official said refugee arrivals, which had been temporarily suspended pending the release of the new resettlement numbers, should resume on October 22. While a short suspension is typical, the weeks-long halt has left many refugees who had already booked their flights stranded. With the focus on the influx of migrants at the southern border, the administration has signed a series of bilateral deals in recent weeks that seek to push asylum seekers from Central America back to the region to apply for refuge in neighboring countries instead of in the United States. Kevin McAleenan, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement the current refugee proposal, with nearly 10 per cent of slots reserved for the northern triangle countries, offers people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras "the opportunity to seek refugee status close to home, rather than embark on a dangerous and often futile journey." Local say The President's companion executive order also potentially limits the places where those that are accepted can be resettled. In the order, he said refugees should only be placed where state and local governments agree to receive them. "State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available," the order said, "which maximizes the likelihood refugees placed in the area will become self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance." The administration said refugee resettlement was a drain on government resources but immigration experts said new arrivals, who come with a legal status, often quickly fill jobs and contribute to local tax revenues. Mark Hetfield, chief executive of Jewish non-profit refugee assistance organization HIAS said the executive order was an attempt by Trump to "allow governors and mayors to imitate his own refugee ban, state by state and town by town."

Trump administration plans to slash number of refugees for US resettlement

Abdullah Rasul has so little contact with his <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/uighurs-challenge-china-to-prove-missing-relatives-are-free-239974">family in China </a>that it took three months for him to find out that his father was dead.

Like other <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/human-rights-watch-report-on-uighurs-full-of-prejudice-says-china-164872">Uighur refugees</a> from <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/dont-know-much-about-imran-khan-on-situation-of-uighurs-muslims-in-china-249715">northwest China</a>, Rasul, 35, who now lives in Istanbul, knows that making contact with relatives back home risks them coming under greater scrutiny from the authorities, or worse.

The snippets of news he manages to receive through the restricted communication channels are terrifying, he says.

Facebook is blocked in China, and relatives fear repercussions if caught using other apps such as WhatsApp.

"The last news I got was in May 2018. I was told my mother, two sisters and elder brother were all sent to a re-education camp," he said.

It was also when he was told his father, a village elder in Turpan city prefecture, had died shortly after a meeting with local authorities.

"I don't have news on my other brothers and sisters."

In recent years, China has cracked down on the Uighur community, a mostly Muslim and Turkic-speaking minority in the northwestern Xinjiang region.

Rights groups and experts say more than one million Uighurs and people of other mostly Muslim ethnic minorities have been rounded up in internment camps in the tightly-controlled region.

After initially denying their existence, Beijing now defends the camps, which it calls "vocational education centres", as a necessary measure to counter religious extremism and terrorism.

Turkish refuge

Rasul, an import-export trader, showed AFP the last video message he received from his father, in May 2017.&nbsp;

He tells his son everything is fine but is nervously looking around, suggesting he feels that he is being watched.

"(A year later) I was told the local government sent him an invitation to 'drink tea', which in China means they have serious questions for you," Rasul said.

"After the meeting, my father left the government office. A few hundred metres (yards) down the road, he passed away."&nbsp;

The Xinjiang government and foreign ministry did not respond to questions from AFP.

Rasul's story is far from unique among the estimated tens of thousands of Uighurs, who have taken refuge in Turkey, the only Muslim-majority nation to have risked China's wrath by supporting their cause.&nbsp;

With a handful of Uighur cafes, shops and businesses, the Istanbul suburb of Sefakoy has become a hub for the community.

At a new martial arts club, members try to keep their culture alive and spirits up.

On a recent evening, the gym was packed with children of all ages, who took a moment to pray before launching into energetic workouts.

Many have parents who moved to Turkey for business reasons, only to be detained during return trips to China after the clampdown, leaving their children stranded in Istanbul.&nbsp;

"We have a lot of children who don't have their parents. They are back home, either in camps or cannot travel to Turkey," said Semerjan Saidi, 31, who helped set up the gym.&nbsp;

Saidi has not spoken to his own family since 2016, after they asked him to cut off contact, sensing the situation was about to worsen.

"They knew something was going to happen, they just didn't know how bad," he said. 
Escape 
Many refugees fled China between 2014 and 2016 when smuggling routes for Uighurs through Central and Southeast Asia were particularly active.

At a Uighur-run cafe in Sefakoy, where locals gather for milkshakes and games of chess, several people told AFP their harrowing stories.

One lost a baby to a fever while fleeing through Vietnam and was so afraid of attracting attention that they buried the child on the side of the road and kept moving.

All the group said they had been unable to speak to their families since the crackdown intensified in 2017, and sometimes before that.&nbsp; 
Mahmoud Tavekul, 46, said that he had not seen his wife or four children since leaving the city of Kashgar, in Xinjiang, in 2014.&nbsp;

His brother had been sentenced to life imprisonment over claims he supported independence for the region, and Tavekul faced endless hassle from the authorities, he said.

His hope to later bring out his family never materialised.&nbsp;

"I have no information about my family. The authorities made them remove me from WeChat," he said, of China's most popular messaging service.&nbsp;

"In 2016, I heard from a friend that my wife had been taken into the camps," he added, saying there had been no news since.

'Something good'

Burhan Saiti, a Uighur economics professor teaching in Istanbul, said that it was "impossible" to send any kind of message.

"If we try to contact our relatives, the Chinese government takes them to concentration camps," he said.

The lack of contact has taken a heavy toll on many but they have tried to rebuild a sense of community in exile.&nbsp;

"Because all the people around me can't contact their family, it brings us together. It's not only happening to me, but for all Uighurs," said Saidi, overseeing a kickboxing class at the gym.&nbsp;

"I think if I can do something for these children that don't have their family, then maybe somebody is doing something good for my family there."

Abdullah Rasul has so little contact with his family in China that it took three months for him to find out that his father was dead. Like other Uighur refugees from northwest China, Rasul, 35, who now lives in Istanbul, knows that making contact with relatives back home risks them coming under greater scrutiny from the authorities, or worse.

Abdullah Rasul has so little contact with his family in China that it took three months for him to find out that his father was dead. Like other Uighur refugees from northwest China, Rasul, 35, who now lives in Istanbul, knows that making contact with relatives back home risks them coming under greater scrutiny from the authorities, or worse. The snippets of news he manages to receive through the restricted communication channels are terrifying, he says. Facebook is blocked in China, and relatives fear repercussions if caught using other apps such as WhatsApp. "The last news I got was in May 2018. I was told my mother, two sisters and elder brother were all sent to a re-education camp," he said. It was also when he was told his father, a village elder in Turpan city prefecture, had died shortly after a meeting with local authorities. "I don't have news on my other brothers and sisters." In recent years, China has cracked down on the Uighur community, a mostly Muslim and Turkic-speaking minority in the northwestern Xinjiang region. Rights groups and experts say more than one million Uighurs and people of other mostly Muslim ethnic minorities have been rounded up in internment camps in the tightly-controlled region. After initially denying their existence, Beijing now defends the camps, which it calls "vocational education centres", as a necessary measure to counter religious extremism and terrorism. Turkish refuge Rasul, an import-export trader, showed AFP the last video message he received from his father, in May 2017. He tells his son everything is fine but is nervously looking around, suggesting he feels that he is being watched. "(A year later) I was told the local government sent him an invitation to 'drink tea', which in China means they have serious questions for you," Rasul said. "After the meeting, my father left the government office. A few hundred metres (yards) down the road, he passed away." The Xinjiang government and foreign ministry did not respond to questions from AFP. Rasul's story is far from unique among the estimated tens of thousands of Uighurs, who have taken refuge in Turkey, the only Muslim-majority nation to have risked China's wrath by supporting their cause. With a handful of Uighur cafes, shops and businesses, the Istanbul suburb of Sefakoy has become a hub for the community. At a new martial arts club, members try to keep their culture alive and spirits up. On a recent evening, the gym was packed with children of all ages, who took a moment to pray before launching into energetic workouts. Many have parents who moved to Turkey for business reasons, only to be detained during return trips to China after the clampdown, leaving their children stranded in Istanbul. "We have a lot of children who don't have their parents. They are back home, either in camps or cannot travel to Turkey," said Semerjan Saidi, 31, who helped set up the gym. Saidi has not spoken to his own family since 2016, after they asked him to cut off contact, sensing the situation was about to worsen. "They knew something was going to happen, they just didn't know how bad," he said. Escape Many refugees fled China between 2014 and 2016 when smuggling routes for Uighurs through Central and Southeast Asia were particularly active. At a Uighur-run cafe in Sefakoy, where locals gather for milkshakes and games of chess, several people told AFP their harrowing stories. One lost a baby to a fever while fleeing through Vietnam and was so afraid of attracting attention that they buried the child on the side of the road and kept moving. All the group said they had been unable to speak to their families since the crackdown intensified in 2017, and sometimes before that. Mahmoud Tavekul, 46, said that he had not seen his wife or four children since leaving the city of Kashgar, in Xinjiang, in 2014. His brother had been sentenced to life imprisonment over claims he supported independence for the region, and Tavekul faced endless hassle from the authorities, he said. His hope to later bring out his family never materialised. "I have no information about my family. The authorities made them remove me from WeChat," he said, of China's most popular messaging service. "In 2016, I heard from a friend that my wife had been taken into the camps," he added, saying there had been no news since. 'Something good' Burhan Saiti, a Uighur economics professor teaching in Istanbul, said that it was "impossible" to send any kind of message. "If we try to contact our relatives, the Chinese government takes them to concentration camps," he said. The lack of contact has taken a heavy toll on many but they have tried to rebuild a sense of community in exile. "Because all the people around me can't contact their family, it brings us together. It's not only happening to me, but for all Uighurs," said Saidi, overseeing a kickboxing class at the gym. "I think if I can do something for these children that don't have their family, then maybe somebody is doing something good for my family there."

China's crackdown in Xinjiang: For Uighur refugees, freedom means losing family

El Salvador's government deployed at least 800 police to its borders with Honduras and Guatemala on Thursday (September 12) in a bid to thwart U.S.-bound migrants, officials announced.

El Salvador sends hundreds of police to border to thwart migrants

Gravitas: The Debate over Rohingyas in India

Greece is to step up border patrols, move asylum-seekers from its islands to the mainland and speed up deportations in an effort to deal with a resurgence in migrant flows from neighbouring Turkey.

The government`s Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence convened on Saturday for an emergency session after the arrival on Thursday of more than a dozen migrant boats carrying around 600 people, the first simultaneous arrival of its kind in three years.&nbsp;

The increase in arrivals has piled additional pressure on Greece`s overcrowded island camps, all of which are operating at least twice their capacity.

Arrivals - mostly of Afghan families - have picked up over the summer, and August saw the highest number of monthly landings in three years.&nbsp;

Greece`s Moria camp on the island of Lesbos - a sprawling facility where conditions have been described by aid organisations as inhumane - is also holding the largest number of people since the deal was agreed.

On Saturday, the government said it would move asylum-seekers to mainland facilities, increase border surveillance together with the European Union`s border patrol agency Frontex and NATO, and boost police patrols across Greece to identify rejected asylum seekers who have remained in the country.

It also plans to cut back a lengthy asylum process, which can take several months to conclude, by abolishing the second stage of appeals when an application is rejected, and deporting the applicant either to Turkey or to their country of origin.

"The asylum process in our country was the longest, the most time consuming and, in the end, the most ineffective in Europe," Greece`s deputy citizen protection minister responsible for migration policy, Giorgos Koumoutsakos, told state television.

Responding to criticism from the opposition that the move was unfair and unlawful, Koumoutsakos said, "Asylum must move quickly so that those who are entitled to international protection are vindicated ... and for us to know who should not stay in Greece."

The government was "determined to push ahead with a robust returns policy because that is what the law and the country`s best interest impose, in accordance with human rights," he said.

Greece was the main gateway to northern Europe in 2015 for nearly a million migrants and refugees from war-torn and poverty-stricken countries in the Middle East and Africa.&nbsp;

A deal between the EU and Turkey in March 2016 reduced the influx to a trickle, but closures of borders across the Balkans resulted in tens of thousands of people stranded in Greece.

Humanitarian organisations have criticised Greece for not doing enough to improve living conditions at its camps, which they have described as "shameful".

 
&nbsp;

Greece is to step up border patrols, move asylum-seekers from its islands to the mainland and speed up deportations in an effort to deal with a resurgence in migrant flows from neighbouring Turkey.

Greece is to step up border patrols, move asylum-seekers from its islands to the mainland and speed up deportations in an effort to deal with a resurgence in migrant flows from neighbouring Turkey. The government`s Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence convened on Saturday for an emergency session after the arrival on Thursday of more than a dozen migrant boats carrying around 600 people, the first simultaneous arrival of its kind in three years. The increase in arrivals has piled additional pressure on Greece`s overcrowded island camps, all of which are operating at least twice their capacity. Arrivals - mostly of Afghan families - have picked up over the summer, and August saw the highest number of monthly landings in three years. Greece`s Moria camp on the island of Lesbos - a sprawling facility where conditions have been described by aid organisations as inhumane - is also holding the largest number of people since the deal was agreed. On Saturday, the government said it would move asylum-seekers to mainland facilities, increase border surveillance together with the European Union`s border patrol agency Frontex and NATO, and boost police patrols across Greece to identify rejected asylum seekers who have remained in the country. It also plans to cut back a lengthy asylum process, which can take several months to conclude, by abolishing the second stage of appeals when an application is rejected, and deporting the applicant either to Turkey or to their country of origin. "The asylum process in our country was the longest, the most time consuming and, in the end, the most ineffective in Europe," Greece`s deputy citizen protection minister responsible for migration policy, Giorgos Koumoutsakos, told state television. Responding to criticism from the opposition that the move was unfair and unlawful, Koumoutsakos said, "Asylum must move quickly so that those who are entitled to international protection are vindicated ... and for us to know who should not stay in Greece." The government was "determined to push ahead with a robust returns policy because that is what the law and the country`s best interest impose, in accordance with human rights," he said. Greece was the main gateway to northern Europe in 2015 for nearly a million migrants and refugees from war-torn and poverty-stricken countries in the Middle East and Africa. A deal between the EU and Turkey in March 2016 reduced the influx to a trickle, but closures of borders across the Balkans resulted in tens of thousands of people stranded in Greece. Humanitarian organisations have criticised Greece for not doing enough to improve living conditions at its camps, which they have described as "shameful".

Greece to increase border patrols and deportations to curb migrant influx

More than 85,000 Venezuelan migrants crossed into Ecuador from Colombia in the last month, ahead of new visa restrictions from Quito that took effect on Monday (August 26), the Colombian government said.

Venezuelan migrants flood into Ecuador ahead of new visa restrictions

Some 200,000 <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/two-years-on-rohingyas-still-without-rights-status-or-justice-244567">Rohingya </a>rallied in a Bangladesh refugee camp to mark two years since they fled a violent crackdown by Myanmar forces, just days after a second failed attempt to repatriate the refugees.

Around 740,000<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-blames-rohingya-repatriation-failure-on-bangladesh-245158"> Rohingya</a> from Myanmar's Rakhine state escaped in August 2017 during the brutal offensive, joining another 200,000 who fled earlier persecution in vast camps in southeast Bangladesh.

Children, hijab-wearing women, and men in long-skirt lungis shouted "God is Great, Long Live Rohingya" as they marched at the heart of the world's largest refugee camp to commemorate what they described as "Genocide Day".

Under the scorching sun, thousands joined in a popular song with the lyrics "the world does not listen to the woes of Rohingya".

"I have come here to seek justice for the murder of my two sons. I will continue to seek justice till my last breath," 50-year-old Tayaba Khatun said as tears rolled down her cheeks.

Myanmar had said they were conducting counter-insurgency operations against Rohingya extremists after they attacked police posts, but the UN last year called for Myanmar's top generals to be prosecuted for genocide over the crisis.

Rohingya leader Mohib Ullah said the stateless minority wanted to return home, but only after they were granted citizenship, their security was ensured and they were allowed to settle back in their villages.

"We have asked the Burmese government for dialogue. But we haven't got any response from them yet," Ullah told the rally.

"We were beaten, killed and raped in Rakhine. But still, that is our home. And we want to go back."

Police officer Zakir Hassan told AFP some 200,000 Rohingya took part in the peaceful gathering.

Security has been tight across Kutupalang camp, the world's largest refugee settlement and home to more than 600,000 Rohingya.

"Hundreds of police, army and border guards have been deployed to prevent any violence," local police chief Abul Monsur told AFP.

The rally came three days after the failed attempt to repatriate the refugees, which saw not a single Rohingya turn up to return across the border.

On Saturday, Bangladesh police said they shot dead two refugees during a gunfight in a camp after the pair were accused of killing a ruling party official.

The Rohingya are not recognised as an official minority by the Myanmar government, which considers them Bengali interlopers despite many families having lived in the country for generations.

Some 200,000 Rohingya rallied in a Bangladesh refugee camp to mark two years since they fled a violent crackdown by Myanmar forces, just days after a second failed attempt to repatriate the refugees.

Some 200,000 Rohingya rallied in a Bangladesh refugee camp to mark two years since they fled a violent crackdown by Myanmar forces, just days after a second failed attempt to repatriate the refugees. Around 740,000 Rohingya from Myanmar's Rakhine state escaped in August 2017 during the brutal offensive, joining another 200,000 who fled earlier persecution in vast camps in southeast Bangladesh. Children, hijab-wearing women, and men in long-skirt lungis shouted "God is Great, Long Live Rohingya" as they marched at the heart of the world's largest refugee camp to commemorate what they described as "Genocide Day". Under the scorching sun, thousands joined in a popular song with the lyrics "the world does not listen to the woes of Rohingya". "I have come here to seek justice for the murder of my two sons. I will continue to seek justice till my last breath," 50-year-old Tayaba Khatun said as tears rolled down her cheeks. Myanmar had said they were conducting counter-insurgency operations against Rohingya extremists after they attacked police posts, but the UN last year called for Myanmar's top generals to be prosecuted for genocide over the crisis. Rohingya leader Mohib Ullah said the stateless minority wanted to return home, but only after they were granted citizenship, their security was ensured and they were allowed to settle back in their villages. "We have asked the Burmese government for dialogue. But we haven't got any response from them yet," Ullah told the rally. "We were beaten, killed and raped in Rakhine. But still, that is our home. And we want to go back." Police officer Zakir Hassan told AFP some 200,000 Rohingya took part in the peaceful gathering. Security has been tight across Kutupalang camp, the world's largest refugee settlement and home to more than 600,000 Rohingya. "Hundreds of police, army and border guards have been deployed to prevent any violence," local police chief Abul Monsur told AFP. The rally came three days after the failed attempt to repatriate the refugees, which saw not a single Rohingya turn up to return across the border. On Saturday, Bangladesh police said they shot dead two refugees during a gunfight in a camp after the pair were accused of killing a ruling party official. The Rohingya are not recognised as an official minority by the Myanmar government, which considers them Bengali interlopers despite many families having lived in the country for generations.

200,000 Rohingya rally to mark 'Genocide Day' in Bangladesh camps

Unlike many of its European neighbours, Portugal is currently trying to attract refugees, encouraging immigration to boost their workforce and combat a dwindling population.

From rescue in the Med, to a migrant's life in Portugal

Every once in a while, a photograph of a migrant’s tragic death (usually that of a child) catches the public’s imagination. The 2015 image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, fleeing from the Syrian civil war, dead face down in the surf on a Turkish beach, triggered a wave of sympathy that ended with Germany opening its borders to 900,000 refugees that year; and Hungary building a border fence to keep them out.

And now, here we are again. A picture of 23-month-old Valeria Martinez, tucked into her father Oscar’s T-shirt, both dead face down on the banks of the Rio Grande, has unleashed a similar wave of sympathy in the United States, although it certainly hasn’t reached the White House yet. And once again, most of the migrants are claiming to be refugees.

In fact, few migrants fit the legal definition of refugees in either case. The Arabs and Afghans trying to get into Europe had fled genuine wars, but they were already in Turkey, which is quite safe. They just wanted to move on to somewhere with better job opportunities and a higher standard of living. That’s understandable, but it doesn’t get you the right of asylum as a refugee.

The same applies to migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe, even though thousands of them are drowning in the attempt. They are fleeing poverty, or dictatorial regimes, or even climate change, but they are not fleeing war.

Neither do they have a “well-founded fear” of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. That is the language of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, so they don’t qualify as refugees. You may feel sorry for them, but there is no legal duty to let them in.

The Refugee Convention was incorporated into the US law in the Refugee Act of 1980, so few of the people now seeking entry at the Mexican border qualify either. This matters, because while 20 years ago, 98% of the people crossing the border were Mexican young men seeking work, more than half are now entire families from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — and most of them claim to be refugees.

They are not, and that is why US courts are rejecting at least three-quarters of the applications for refugee status. You may wish that the law took a more generous and humanitarian view, but it does not. And if you think things are bad now, they will be ten times worse in 20 years’ time.

Global warming is starting to bite. We’re still on the learner slopes, but the onslaught of droughts and floods, and then the crop failures that they cause, are multiplying, especially in the tropics and the sub-tropics where temperatures are already high.

In the worst-hit areas, family farms are failing, some people are going hungry, and the number of people on the move is starting to soar. This is precisely what unpublished, in-house government studies were predicting 20 years ago in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Now it’s here.

As the number of migrants goes up, the willingness of host populations to receive them will inevitably go down. That’s human nature. You may deplore it, but it’s not going to change. And behind uncomfortable considerations of what the politics will permit, lies the even starker reality that they can’t all come.&nbsp;

Twenty years from now there will be far more people who desperately want to move than the destination countries could possibly accommodate.

So, the borders will start slamming shut in the countries, mostly in the temperate zone of the planet, where the climate is still tolerable and there is still enough food to eat. And don’t believe the myth that you cannot really shut a border. You can do so quite easily if you are willing to kill the people who try to cross it illegally, and the governments of the destination countries will probably end up doing just that.&nbsp;

Their military and their civil servants, if not their politicians, were already having grim internal debates about it 15 years ago. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-few-immigrants-fit-the-legal-definition-of-global-refugees-2777770">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Every once in a while, a photograph of a migrant’s tragic death (usually that of a child) catches the public’s imagination. The 2015 image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, fleeing from the Syrian civil war, dead face down in the surf on a Turkish beach, triggered a wave of sympathy that ended with Germany opening its borders to 900,000 refugees that year; and Hungary building a border fence to keep them out.

Every once in a while, a photograph of a migrant’s tragic death (usually that of a child) catches the public’s imagination. The 2015 image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, fleeing from the Syrian civil war, dead face down in the surf on a Turkish beach, triggered a wave of sympathy that ended with Germany opening its borders to 900,000 refugees that year; and Hungary building a border fence to keep them out. And now, here we are again. A picture of 23-month-old Valeria Martinez, tucked into her father Oscar’s T-shirt, both dead face down on the banks of the Rio Grande, has unleashed a similar wave of sympathy in the United States, although it certainly hasn’t reached the White House yet. And once again, most of the migrants are claiming to be refugees. In fact, few migrants fit the legal definition of refugees in either case. The Arabs and Afghans trying to get into Europe had fled genuine wars, but they were already in Turkey, which is quite safe. They just wanted to move on to somewhere with better job opportunities and a higher standard of living. That’s understandable, but it doesn’t get you the right of asylum as a refugee. The same applies to migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe, even though thousands of them are drowning in the attempt. They are fleeing poverty, or dictatorial regimes, or even climate change, but they are not fleeing war. Neither do they have a “well-founded fear” of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. That is the language of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, so they don’t qualify as refugees. You may feel sorry for them, but there is no legal duty to let them in. The Refugee Convention was incorporated into the US law in the Refugee Act of 1980, so few of the people now seeking entry at the Mexican border qualify either. This matters, because while 20 years ago, 98% of the people crossing the border were Mexican young men seeking work, more than half are now entire families from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — and most of them claim to be refugees. They are not, and that is why US courts are rejecting at least three-quarters of the applications for refugee status. You may wish that the law took a more generous and humanitarian view, but it does not. And if you think things are bad now, they will be ten times worse in 20 years’ time. Global warming is starting to bite. We’re still on the learner slopes, but the onslaught of droughts and floods, and then the crop failures that they cause, are multiplying, especially in the tropics and the sub-tropics where temperatures are already high. In the worst-hit areas, family farms are failing, some people are going hungry, and the number of people on the move is starting to soar. This is precisely what unpublished, in-house government studies were predicting 20 years ago in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Now it’s here. As the number of migrants goes up, the willingness of host populations to receive them will inevitably go down. That’s human nature. You may deplore it, but it’s not going to change. And behind uncomfortable considerations of what the politics will permit, lies the even starker reality that they can’t all come. Twenty years from now there will be far more people who desperately want to move than the destination countries could possibly accommodate. So, the borders will start slamming shut in the countries, mostly in the temperate zone of the planet, where the climate is still tolerable and there is still enough food to eat. And don’t believe the myth that you cannot really shut a border. You can do so quite easily if you are willing to kill the people who try to cross it illegally, and the governments of the destination countries will probably end up doing just that. Their military and their civil servants, if not their politicians, were already having grim internal debates about it 15 years ago. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Few immigrants fit the legal definition of global refugees

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed July 23 for further hearing in National Register of Citizens (NRC) matter.

Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam.

Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world."

On Wednesday, Union Minister Amit Shah had said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law.

Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law."&nbsp;

The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed July 23 for further hearing in National Register of Citizens (NRC) matter. Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam.

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed July 23 for further hearing in National Register of Citizens (NRC) matter. Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam. Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world." On Wednesday, Union Minister Amit Shah had said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law. Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law." The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. (With inputs from agencies)

NRC matter: 'India can't be refugee capital of the world,' Centre tells Supreme Court

Thousands of protesters marched to a police office in the north of Myanmar's largest city, Yangon, on Saturday (July 6), demanding speedy and transparent justice in a child-rape case that has sparked national outrage. Police said this week they had arrested a suspect in the rape of a toddler - nicknamed Victoria - at a private nursery school in the administrative capital, Naypyitaw, in May. Social media users have criticised the speed and professionalism of the police response after the girl's family filed a complaint more than a month ago, underscoring a lack of trust in authorities in a country still emerging from decades of military rule.

Thousands protest amid outcry over Myanmar child-rape case

Developing countries, not rich Western nations, are bearing the brunt of the world's refugee crisis and are hosting most of the record 70.8 million displaced people who have fled war and persecution, the United Nations and Norwegian Refugee Council said on Wednesday.

Developing countries host majority of refugees: UN report

More than 70 million people were counted last year as displaced from their homes, a record that underestimates the real number of refugees and asylum seekers, the UN said Wednesday.&nbsp;

In its annual global trends report, the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) described the figure of 70.8 million at the end of 2018 as "conservative", particularly because the number of people who fled Venezuela's devastating crisis is undercounted.&nbsp;

At the end of 2017, by comparison, 68.5 million people were counted as being forcibly displaced by violence or persecution.

The UNHCR attributed the increase partly to surging displacement in Ethiopia caused by inter-ethnic conflict, and in Venezuela, where thousands are fleeing every day amid an economic collapse that has triggered shortages of basic food and medicine.

An estimated 3.3 million people have left Venezuela since the start of 2016, according to the UN.&nbsp;

UNHCR head Filippo Grandi told reporters in Geneva the figure of 70.8 million only includes Venezuelans who had officially applied for asylum -- roughly half a million people.

Overall, the number of displaced people in the world has doubled over the last 20 years and now exceeds the population of Thailand.&nbsp;

The trend, Grandi said, continues to go in "the wrong direction".

Conflicts 'Never' End

According to Amnesty International, a refugee is a person who flees their home country and cannot or will not return due to conflict or fear of persecution.

The report lists 41.3 million internally displaced people (IDPs), 25.9 million refugees, and 3.5 million asylum seekers -- those awaiting a decision on their bid for official refugee protection.

The countries with the most internally displaced people -- fleeing within their own countries -- are Syria, wracked by conflict since 2011 and Colombia, plagued by decades of violence, said the UNHCR.

The group of refugees, it added, included 5.5 million Palestinians scattered across several countries, notably Lebanon and Jordan.&nbsp;

The best solution for a refugee is to be able to return home once their country stabilises, but Grandi noted that 20 per cent have been in exile for more than two decades.&nbsp;

"We have become almost unable to make peace," the UNHCR chief said.&nbsp;

"It is true there are new conflicts, new situations producing refugees..., (but) the old ones never get resolved," he added. "When is the last conflict that you remember was resolved?"

&nbsp;'Praise' for Germany&nbsp;

The UNHCR has at times sought to push back against the phrase "migrant crisis", especially as it has been applied to an influx of people into Europe via the Mediterranean sea.

The agency has argued that while mass migration does pose serious challenges, it can be managed, particularly by wealthier nations.&nbsp;

Grandi praised Germany for its acceptance of migrants and its efforts to "demystify" the notion that migration is unmanageable, "even when the numbers are very big."

"I usually don't like to praise and criticise but I think in this case, I'd like to praise Germany for what it has done," said Grandi in Geneva, ahead of the report's launch in Berlin.&nbsp;

He noted that Chancellor Angela Merkel had paid a "heavy price" politically for her openness to migration, arguing this made her actions "even more courageous".

More than 70 million people were counted last year as displaced from their homes, a record that underestimates the real number of refugees and asylum seekers, the UN said Wednesday.

More than 70 million people were counted last year as displaced from their homes, a record that underestimates the real number of refugees and asylum seekers, the UN said Wednesday. In its annual global trends report, the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) described the figure of 70.8 million at the end of 2018 as "conservative", particularly because the number of people who fled Venezuela's devastating crisis is undercounted. At the end of 2017, by comparison, 68.5 million people were counted as being forcibly displaced by violence or persecution. The UNHCR attributed the increase partly to surging displacement in Ethiopia caused by inter-ethnic conflict, and in Venezuela, where thousands are fleeing every day amid an economic collapse that has triggered shortages of basic food and medicine. An estimated 3.3 million people have left Venezuela since the start of 2016, according to the UN. UNHCR head Filippo Grandi told reporters in Geneva the figure of 70.8 million only includes Venezuelans who had officially applied for asylum -- roughly half a million people. Overall, the number of displaced people in the world has doubled over the last 20 years and now exceeds the population of Thailand. The trend, Grandi said, continues to go in "the wrong direction". Conflicts 'Never' End According to Amnesty International, a refugee is a person who flees their home country and cannot or will not return due to conflict or fear of persecution. The report lists 41.3 million internally displaced people (IDPs), 25.9 million refugees, and 3.5 million asylum seekers -- those awaiting a decision on their bid for official refugee protection. The countries with the most internally displaced people -- fleeing within their own countries -- are Syria, wracked by conflict since 2011 and Colombia, plagued by decades of violence, said the UNHCR. The group of refugees, it added, included 5.5 million Palestinians scattered across several countries, notably Lebanon and Jordan. The best solution for a refugee is to be able to return home once their country stabilises, but Grandi noted that 20 per cent have been in exile for more than two decades. "We have become almost unable to make peace," the UNHCR chief said. "It is true there are new conflicts, new situations producing refugees..., (but) the old ones never get resolved," he added. "When is the last conflict that you remember was resolved?" 'Praise' for Germany The UNHCR has at times sought to push back against the phrase "migrant crisis", especially as it has been applied to an influx of people into Europe via the Mediterranean sea. The agency has argued that while mass migration does pose serious challenges, it can be managed, particularly by wealthier nations. Grandi praised Germany for its acceptance of migrants and its efforts to "demystify" the notion that migration is unmanageable, "even when the numbers are very big." "I usually don't like to praise and criticise but I think in this case, I'd like to praise Germany for what it has done," said Grandi in Geneva, ahead of the report's launch in Berlin. He noted that Chancellor Angela Merkel had paid a "heavy price" politically for her openness to migration, arguing this made her actions "even more courageous".

Record 70.8 million people displaced at end of 2018: UN

Developing countries, not rich Western nations, are bearing the brunt of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/one-million-refugees-can-be-major-threat-to-security-of-entire-region-bangladeshs-high-commissioner-on-rohingyas-228434">world's refugee crisis</a> and are hosting most of the record 70.8 million displaced people who have fled war and persecution, the United Nations said on Wednesday.

Half of the world's forcibly displaced are children and the 2018 total is the highest in nearly 70 years, the UN refugee agency said in its annual flagship report, Global Trends.

But the global figure, which comprises 25.9 million refugees, 41.3 million people uprooted within their homelands, and 3.5 million asylum-seekers, is "conservative", it said.

That is because it does not include most of the 4 million Venezuelans who have fled abroad since 2015 as they do not need visas or to lodge asylum claims to stay in most host countries. If the outflow continues, a total of 5 million Venezuelans could have left by year-end, it said.

"Certainly if the situation is not solved politically in Venezuela, with a political agreement, we will see a continuation of this exodus," Filippo Grandi, UN&nbsp;High Commissioner for Refugees, told a news briefing.

Venezuelans, arriving mainly in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, formed the second biggest flow abroad last year, after Syrians fleeing to Turkey following eight years of war, the report said.

"When you say Europe has a refugee emergency, or the United States, or Australia - no. Most of the refugees are in fact in the country next to where the war is, and unfortunately that means mostly in poor countries or in middle-income countries," Grandi said.

"That's where the crisis is, that's need where we need to focus," he told a news briefing.

More than two-thirds of the world's refugees come from five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia, the report said.

Asylum claims

US President Donald Trump has made reducing illegal migration along the border with Mexico one of his signature policy pledges.

Central Americans reaching the United States after fleeing violence or persecution in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are entitled to request asylum, Grandi said.

The United States should give such people a fair hearing and not separate children from their parents, he said, adding that his agency stood ready to help US authorities deal with the challenge.

With 254,300 asylum claims lodged in 2018, the United States is the world’s largest recipient of applications, the report said.

But Grandi said the United States has a huge backlog of 800,000 cases to be processed and that his agency was also helping Mexico to beef up its capacity to handle asylum-seekers.

Asked whether Trump's policies had made the work of UNHCR more difficult, he said: "It's not just in the United States, in Europe as well, and Australia.

"This is the crisis of solidarity that I have mentioned. It is identifying refugees and migrants with a problem instead of people that are fleeing from a problem," he said.

In Europe, the issue has been heavily politicised, leaving some governments "terrified" to commit to take in people rescued at sea after fleeing Libya or other conflict zones, Grandi said.

"So the appeal I make, now that we are in a situation where European (Parliament) elections are behind us, is to stop this electoral agitation. The numbers arriving in Europe are frankly manageable," he said.

Developing countries, not rich Western nations, are bearing the brunt of the world's refugee crisis and are hosting most of the record 70.8 million displaced people who have fled war and persecution, the United Nations said on Wednesday.

Developing countries, not rich Western nations, are bearing the brunt of the world's refugee crisis and are hosting most of the record 70.8 million displaced people who have fled war and persecution, the United Nations said on Wednesday. Half of the world's forcibly displaced are children and the 2018 total is the highest in nearly 70 years, the UN refugee agency said in its annual flagship report, Global Trends. But the global figure, which comprises 25.9 million refugees, 41.3 million people uprooted within their homelands, and 3.5 million asylum-seekers, is "conservative", it said. That is because it does not include most of the 4 million Venezuelans who have fled abroad since 2015 as they do not need visas or to lodge asylum claims to stay in most host countries. If the outflow continues, a total of 5 million Venezuelans could have left by year-end, it said. "Certainly if the situation is not solved politically in Venezuela, with a political agreement, we will see a continuation of this exodus," Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, told a news briefing. Venezuelans, arriving mainly in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, formed the second biggest flow abroad last year, after Syrians fleeing to Turkey following eight years of war, the report said. "When you say Europe has a refugee emergency, or the United States, or Australia - no. Most of the refugees are in fact in the country next to where the war is, and unfortunately that means mostly in poor countries or in middle-income countries," Grandi said. "That's where the crisis is, that's need where we need to focus," he told a news briefing. More than two-thirds of the world's refugees come from five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia, the report said. Asylum claims US President Donald Trump has made reducing illegal migration along the border with Mexico one of his signature policy pledges. Central Americans reaching the United States after fleeing violence or persecution in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are entitled to request asylum, Grandi said. The United States should give such people a fair hearing and not separate children from their parents, he said, adding that his agency stood ready to help US authorities deal with the challenge. With 254,300 asylum claims lodged in 2018, the United States is the world’s largest recipient of applications, the report said. But Grandi said the United States has a huge backlog of 800,000 cases to be processed and that his agency was also helping Mexico to beef up its capacity to handle asylum-seekers. Asked whether Trump's policies had made the work of UNHCR more difficult, he said: "It's not just in the United States, in Europe as well, and Australia. "This is the crisis of solidarity that I have mentioned. It is identifying refugees and migrants with a problem instead of people that are fleeing from a problem," he said. In Europe, the issue has been heavily politicised, leaving some governments "terrified" to commit to take in people rescued at sea after fleeing Libya or other conflict zones, Grandi said. "So the appeal I make, now that we are in a situation where European (Parliament) elections are behind us, is to stop this electoral agitation. The numbers arriving in Europe are frankly manageable," he said.

Poor nations hosting most refugees worldwide, need more Western help: UN

By Savitri Arvey and Steph Leutert

Over the past three months, the number of Central Americans arriving at the US-Mexico border has jumped exponentially, and total border crossings have reached levels last seen in 2006.

Yet, while the number of families arriving between official border crossings has skyrocketed, the number of migrants seeking asylum at official border crossings has remained relatively constant, at around 4,200 per month.

It’s not that these families prefer to cross the Rio Grande or scale the border wall. Instead, our research shows that at least part of this pattern can be explained by a US policy that has left thousands of individuals waiting to request asylum in Mexican border cities since the summer of 2018.

A shift in US policy

In May 2018, US Customs and Border Protection officials began a practice known as metering across the southern border.

This means that officials are stationed at official ports of entry along the border to notify arriving asylum seekers that US&nbsp;border crossings are full due to “limited processing capacity” and they will have to wait in Mexico until space becomes available. Previously, officials processed all asylum seekers that showed up at crossings.

At the same time that the metering process began, these US&nbsp;officials started coordinating with Mexican officials to alert them of their capacity and how many asylum seekers the ports could accept per day.

As metering spread across the border, the number of asylum seekers in Mexican border cities increased. Yet it wasn’t clear exactly how many people were left waiting. When we started our research in November, no one had reported the numbers across the entire border or how the waitlists worked.

In December, we published a report with four colleagues that documented the spread of metering along the US-Mexico border and responses within Mexican border cities.

Soon after the report was published, new migration dynamics began to shift what metering looked like in these border cities, so we published an update in February and another in May.

These reports draw on dozens of interviews with Mexican government officials and civil society representatives, as well as in-person observations at ports of entry.

Our reports show that the number of people waiting in border cities to seek asylum at ports of entry has increased – from approximately 6,000 in November 2018, when the Honduran migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana, Baja California, to 19,000 in May 2019.

The increasing numbers have resulted in longer wait times along the entire border. In November 2018, most asylum seekers waited a few days or weeks for their turn on the list to request asylum at the port of entry. Now, asylum seekers wait one to two months in most cities for the chance to ask for asylum at a port of entry. In Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua and San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, they wait over four months. 
 
Waitlists

A growing numbers of Mexican border cities have developed waitlists to organize the lines of asylum seekers, coordinating with Customs and Border Protection officials on how many are accepted per day.

While all major border cities have waitlists, smaller cities now also have started their own waitlists. These lists are managed by a range of administrators, including Mexico’s National Migration Institute, state and municipal governments, civil society organizations and asylum seekers themselves.

The list logistics also vary. They may include writing name and nationality in a notebook; sending personal contact information through social media, such as a private Facebook group; or sending a Whatsapp note to the list officiator.

This lack of standardisation is not only confusing for asylum seekers, but can create nontransparent processes that foster corruption. For example, we and others have heard allegations of list administrators charging bribes to add asylum seekers to their list.

The increase in the number asylum seekers and longer wait times has put a stress on shelters in Mexican border cities, which all reported to us that they were over capacity.

As a result, asylum seekers rent hotel rooms and apartments or sleep on the streets. This increases their risks for being preyed upon by organised criminals or other opportunistic actors.

Creating new issues

The nonstandard waiting list process, long wait times and security threats in Mexican border cities have pushed some individuals to cross without authorization between US&nbsp;ports of entry to request asylum.

An October 2018 Department of Homeland Security report documented this trend, noting that metering “may have led asylum seekers at ports of entry to attempt illegal border crossings” after being turned away at ports of entry. It has also created confusion with the waitlists in Mexican border cities, as some asylum seekers do not show up for their turns.

We believe the challenges are likely to only worsen in the coming months. According to a June 7 agreement with Mexico, US&nbsp;authorities have promised to begin sending back more people to Mexican border cities under the Migrant Protection Protocols, a program that began in January to send asylum seekers to Mexico for the duration of their US asylum case proceedings.

With larger numbers of people waiting to seek asylum and others waiting during their asylum cases, Mexican border communities will likely continue to feel the strain.

 
(Savitri Arvey is Graduate Student Researcher at the Center for US-Mexican Studies, University of California San Diego; Steph Leutert is irector of the MDexico Security Initiative, University of Texas at Austin)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/thousands-of-asylum-seekers-left-waiting-at-the-us-mexico-border-118367">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Savitri Arvey and Steph Leutert Over the past three months, the number of Central Americans arriving at the US-Mexico border has jumped exponentially, and total border crossings have reached levels last seen in 2006.

By Savitri Arvey and Steph Leutert Over the past three months, the number of Central Americans arriving at the US-Mexico border has jumped exponentially, and total border crossings have reached levels last seen in 2006. Yet, while the number of families arriving between official border crossings has skyrocketed, the number of migrants seeking asylum at official border crossings has remained relatively constant, at around 4,200 per month. It’s not that these families prefer to cross the Rio Grande or scale the border wall. Instead, our research shows that at least part of this pattern can be explained by a US policy that has left thousands of individuals waiting to request asylum in Mexican border cities since the summer of 2018. A shift in US policy In May 2018, US Customs and Border Protection officials began a practice known as metering across the southern border. This means that officials are stationed at official ports of entry along the border to notify arriving asylum seekers that US border crossings are full due to “limited processing capacity” and they will have to wait in Mexico until space becomes available. Previously, officials processed all asylum seekers that showed up at crossings. At the same time that the metering process began, these US officials started coordinating with Mexican officials to alert them of their capacity and how many asylum seekers the ports could accept per day. As metering spread across the border, the number of asylum seekers in Mexican border cities increased. Yet it wasn’t clear exactly how many people were left waiting. When we started our research in November, no one had reported the numbers across the entire border or how the waitlists worked. In December, we published a report with four colleagues that documented the spread of metering along the US-Mexico border and responses within Mexican border cities. Soon after the report was published, new migration dynamics began to shift what metering looked like in these border cities, so we published an update in February and another in May. These reports draw on dozens of interviews with Mexican government officials and civil society representatives, as well as in-person observations at ports of entry. Our reports show that the number of people waiting in border cities to seek asylum at ports of entry has increased – from approximately 6,000 in November 2018, when the Honduran migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana, Baja California, to 19,000 in May 2019. The increasing numbers have resulted in longer wait times along the entire border. In November 2018, most asylum seekers waited a few days or weeks for their turn on the list to request asylum at the port of entry. Now, asylum seekers wait one to two months in most cities for the chance to ask for asylum at a port of entry. In Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua and San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, they wait over four months. Waitlists A growing numbers of Mexican border cities have developed waitlists to organize the lines of asylum seekers, coordinating with Customs and Border Protection officials on how many are accepted per day. While all major border cities have waitlists, smaller cities now also have started their own waitlists. These lists are managed by a range of administrators, including Mexico’s National Migration Institute, state and municipal governments, civil society organizations and asylum seekers themselves. The list logistics also vary. They may include writing name and nationality in a notebook; sending personal contact information through social media, such as a private Facebook group; or sending a Whatsapp note to the list officiator. This lack of standardisation is not only confusing for asylum seekers, but can create nontransparent processes that foster corruption. For example, we and others have heard allegations of list administrators charging bribes to add asylum seekers to their list. The increase in the number asylum seekers and longer wait times has put a stress on shelters in Mexican border cities, which all reported to us that they were over capacity. As a result, asylum seekers rent hotel rooms and apartments or sleep on the streets. This increases their risks for being preyed upon by organised criminals or other opportunistic actors. Creating new issues The nonstandard waiting list process, long wait times and security threats in Mexican border cities have pushed some individuals to cross without authorization between US ports of entry to request asylum. An October 2018 Department of Homeland Security report documented this trend, noting that metering “may have led asylum seekers at ports of entry to attempt illegal border crossings” after being turned away at ports of entry. It has also created confusion with the waitlists in Mexican border cities, as some asylum seekers do not show up for their turns. We believe the challenges are likely to only worsen in the coming months. According to a June 7 agreement with Mexico, US authorities have promised to begin sending back more people to Mexican border cities under the Migrant Protection Protocols, a program that began in January to send asylum seekers to Mexico for the duration of their US asylum case proceedings. With larger numbers of people waiting to seek asylum and others waiting during their asylum cases, Mexican border communities will likely continue to feel the strain. (Savitri Arvey is Graduate Student Researcher at the Center for US-Mexican Studies, University of California San Diego; Steph Leutert is irector of the MDexico Security Initiative, University of Texas at Austin) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Thousands of asylum seekers left waiting at the US-Mexico border

Watch Sri Lanka's crackdown on terror post Easter bombings. Sri Lanka declared national emergency post attacks.

Sri Lanka attacks: Lanka declared national emergency post attacks

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pope-francis-condemns-sri-lanka-attacks-as-such-cruel-violence-212289">Pope Francis on Sunday</a> urged world leaders to try again to bring peace to Libya and in Syria where millions of refugees and people displaced by conflict should be helped to return home.

In his traditional Easter Sunday address to the faithful at the Vatican, where some 70,000 were gathered in Saint Peter's square, the pope also expressed his "sadness" at news of the deadly bomb attacks on churches and hotels in Sri Lanka.

Francis noted how in Libya violence has flared up again as strongman Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army attacked Tripoli, seat of the UN-backed government.

"May conflict and bloodshed cease in Libya, where defenceless people are once more dying in recent weeks," Francis said.

"I urge the parties involved to choose dialogue over force and to avoid reopening wounds left by a decade of conflicts and political instability."

In Syria, where President Bashar Al-Assad has steadily recovered territory lost to rebel groups, the pope lamented the fate of "the beloved Syrian people, victims of an ongoing conflict to which we risk becoming ever more resigned and even indifferent."

"Now is instead the time for a renewed commitment for a political solution able to respond to people’s legitimate hopes for freedom, peace and justice, confront the humanitarian crisis and favour the secure re-entry of the homeless, along with all those who have taken refuge in neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon and Jordan."

The Pope noted how Easter, the holiest Christian festival, "makes us keep our eyes fixed on the Middle East, torn by continuing divisions and tensions."

Turning to South Sudan, Pope Francis urged rival leaders President Salva Kiir and rebel chief Riek Machar -- who met recently at the Vatican -- to sink their differences to pursue national reconciliation.

On Saturday, Kiir called on Machar to return home "urgently" to help form a government of national unity.&nbsp;

Pope Francis on Sunday urged world leaders to try again to bring peace to Libya and in Syria where millions of refugees and people displaced by conflict should be helped to return home.

Pope Francis on Sunday urged world leaders to try again to bring peace to Libya and in Syria where millions of refugees and people displaced by conflict should be helped to return home. In his traditional Easter Sunday address to the faithful at the Vatican, where some 70,000 were gathered in Saint Peter's square, the pope also expressed his "sadness" at news of the deadly bomb attacks on churches and hotels in Sri Lanka. Francis noted how in Libya violence has flared up again as strongman Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army attacked Tripoli, seat of the UN-backed government. "May conflict and bloodshed cease in Libya, where defenceless people are once more dying in recent weeks," Francis said. "I urge the parties involved to choose dialogue over force and to avoid reopening wounds left by a decade of conflicts and political instability." In Syria, where President Bashar Al-Assad has steadily recovered territory lost to rebel groups, the pope lamented the fate of "the beloved Syrian people, victims of an ongoing conflict to which we risk becoming ever more resigned and even indifferent." "Now is instead the time for a renewed commitment for a political solution able to respond to people’s legitimate hopes for freedom, peace and justice, confront the humanitarian crisis and favour the secure re-entry of the homeless, along with all those who have taken refuge in neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon and Jordan." The Pope noted how Easter, the holiest Christian festival, "makes us keep our eyes fixed on the Middle East, torn by continuing divisions and tensions." Turning to South Sudan, Pope Francis urged rival leaders President Salva Kiir and rebel chief Riek Machar -- who met recently at the Vatican -- to sink their differences to pursue national reconciliation. On Saturday, Kiir called on Machar to return home "urgently" to help form a government of national unity.

Pope Francis urges Libya peace, return of refugees to Syria

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-bangladesh-call-for-safe-and-sustainable-repatriation-of-rohingya-refugees-196061">Bangladesh</a> police have stopped 43<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bangladesh-fears-lingering-rohingya-crisis-may-trigger-radicalism-196630"> Rohingya refugees</a> from being smuggled to Malaysia by boat with a dozen women claiming they were abducted by traffickers, officials said Thursday.

Acting on tip-offs, police found the refugees at two separate places in the southeastern border district of Cox's Bazar, raising the number of Rohingya being rescued from the traffickers to more than 100 in less than a week.

About 740,000 of the Muslim minority fled Myanmar for Bangladesh after a military clampdown in the Buddhist-majority nation in August 2017.

They have joined another 300,000 Rohingya who have already been living in overcrowded camps in Cox's Bazar following previous bouts of violence.

Officials fear many may end up being exploited by an internationally organised human smuggling racket who have previously sent thousands of Rohingya to Malaysia by boats until Bangladesh launched a crackdown in 2015 following the discovery of mass graves of refugees in Thailand.&nbsp;

Rapid Action Battalion, an elite police unit, said they rescued 12 women — mostly in their 20s — from a residential room in Cox's Bazar city early Thursday morning and arrested two alleged traffickers for "abducting" them.

"The young women from the refugee camps were lured by the traffickers. They were promised they would be sent to Malaysia. They were then brought to Cox's Bazar and kept in a house," RAB spokesman Mashkur Rahman told AFP.

Rahman said they were treating it as a case of abduction after the women claimed they were confined in a room without consent.

In another drive late Wednesday, Cox's Bazar police rescued another 31 Rohingya from the southern island of Maheshkhali, some 110 kilometres (70 miles) away from the overcrowded Kutupalong refugee camp.

Local police chief Provash Chandra said the 14 women, 11 men and six children were hiding in a coastal forest at Maheskhali waiting to board a Malaysian-bound boat.

"They paid some 20,000 taka ($240) each to the traffickers for the journey," he said.

He said they arrested a woman trafficker and were "searching for others".

Dangerous sign

An analyst said the latest discovery of Malaysia-bound Rohingya was a "dangerous" sign and shows the desperation at more than 30 refugee camps where the Rohingya live in bamboo and tarpaulin made shanties in squalid conditions.

"It is very natural for the desperate refugees to attempt the risk to search for a better future," Tasneem Siddiqui, who heads a Bangladeshi think tank on migration issues, told AFP.

"They know the way is full of obstacles, yet many think this is their only way out," she said.

Authorities fear that more Rohingya will try to take boats to Malaysia while the Bay of Bengal remains calm before the arrival of monsoons at the end of March.

Bangladesh police have stopped 43 Rohingya refugees from being smuggled to Malaysia by boat with a dozen women claiming they were abducted by traffickers, officials said Thursday.

Bangladesh police have stopped 43 Rohingya refugees from being smuggled to Malaysia by boat with a dozen women claiming they were abducted by traffickers, officials said Thursday. Acting on tip-offs, police found the refugees at two separate places in the southeastern border district of Cox's Bazar, raising the number of Rohingya being rescued from the traffickers to more than 100 in less than a week. About 740,000 of the Muslim minority fled Myanmar for Bangladesh after a military clampdown in the Buddhist-majority nation in August 2017. They have joined another 300,000 Rohingya who have already been living in overcrowded camps in Cox's Bazar following previous bouts of violence. Officials fear many may end up being exploited by an internationally organised human smuggling racket who have previously sent thousands of Rohingya to Malaysia by boats until Bangladesh launched a crackdown in 2015 following the discovery of mass graves of refugees in Thailand. Rapid Action Battalion, an elite police unit, said they rescued 12 women — mostly in their 20s — from a residential room in Cox's Bazar city early Thursday morning and arrested two alleged traffickers for "abducting" them. "The young women from the refugee camps were lured by the traffickers. They were promised they would be sent to Malaysia. They were then brought to Cox's Bazar and kept in a house," RAB spokesman Mashkur Rahman told AFP. Rahman said they were treating it as a case of abduction after the women claimed they were confined in a room without consent. In another drive late Wednesday, Cox's Bazar police rescued another 31 Rohingya from the southern island of Maheshkhali, some 110 kilometres (70 miles) away from the overcrowded Kutupalong refugee camp. Local police chief Provash Chandra said the 14 women, 11 men and six children were hiding in a coastal forest at Maheskhali waiting to board a Malaysian-bound boat. "They paid some 20,000 taka ($240) each to the traffickers for the journey," he said. He said they arrested a woman trafficker and were "searching for others". Dangerous sign An analyst said the latest discovery of Malaysia-bound Rohingya was a "dangerous" sign and shows the desperation at more than 30 refugee camps where the Rohingya live in bamboo and tarpaulin made shanties in squalid conditions. "It is very natural for the desperate refugees to attempt the risk to search for a better future," Tasneem Siddiqui, who heads a Bangladeshi think tank on migration issues, told AFP. "They know the way is full of obstacles, yet many think this is their only way out," she said. Authorities fear that more Rohingya will try to take boats to Malaysia while the Bay of Bengal remains calm before the arrival of monsoons at the end of March.

Bangladesh rescues 'abducted' Malaysia-bound Rohingya

Indonesian police found 193 Bangladeshis locked up in a shophouse after human traffickers had lured them with the promise of getting them to Malaysia, an immigration official said on Thursday.

The men entered Indonesia as tourists via Bali and the city of Yogyakarta with the intention of going to Malaysia for work, North Sumatra's immigration chief said.

"They are victims of human trafficking and were lured here," Fery Monang Sihite said by telephone, adding that the men had been locked up in Medan on the island of Sumatra.

The men, who were described as in a healthy condition when they were found on Tuesday night, had been taken to an immigration detention centre and would be sent back to Bangladesh, Sihite said.

One of the men, named as 39-year old Mahbub, was quoted by online news portal Tribun Medan as saying that some of the group had been held by the traffickers for three months.

"All of us were conned. The destination was meant to be Malaysia. We left from Bangladesh to Bali and arrived here after taking a four-day bus trip," Mahbub was quoted as saying.

Reuters could not immediately reach the men or police for comment.

Authorities were first alerted to the case after neighbours had reported hearing suspicious noises coming from the building, according to media.

Sihite said the men were not Rohingya Muslims.

Hundreds of Rohingya have landed by boat in Sumatra in recent years after fleeing Myanmar and Bangladesh, often intending to reach Malaysia.

Myanmar regards Rohingya as illegal migrants and has confined tens of thousands to sprawling camps in Rakhine state since violence swept the area in 2012.

More than 700,000 Rohingya crossed into Bangladesh after fleeing an army crackdown in the north of Rakhine, according to U.N. agencies.

Indonesian police found 193 Bangladeshis locked up in a shophouse after human traffickers had lured them with the promise of getting them to Malaysia, an immigration official said on Thursday.

Indonesian police found 193 Bangladeshis locked up in a shophouse after human traffickers had lured them with the promise of getting them to Malaysia, an immigration official said on Thursday. The men entered Indonesia as tourists via Bali and the city of Yogyakarta with the intention of going to Malaysia for work, North Sumatra's immigration chief said. "They are victims of human trafficking and were lured here," Fery Monang Sihite said by telephone, adding that the men had been locked up in Medan on the island of Sumatra. The men, who were described as in a healthy condition when they were found on Tuesday night, had been taken to an immigration detention centre and would be sent back to Bangladesh, Sihite said. One of the men, named as 39-year old Mahbub, was quoted by online news portal Tribun Medan as saying that some of the group had been held by the traffickers for three months. "All of us were conned. The destination was meant to be Malaysia. We left from Bangladesh to Bali and arrived here after taking a four-day bus trip," Mahbub was quoted as saying. Reuters could not immediately reach the men or police for comment. Authorities were first alerted to the case after neighbours had reported hearing suspicious noises coming from the building, according to media. Sihite said the men were not Rohingya Muslims. Hundreds of Rohingya have landed by boat in Sumatra in recent years after fleeing Myanmar and Bangladesh, often intending to reach Malaysia. Myanmar regards Rohingya as illegal migrants and has confined tens of thousands to sprawling camps in Rakhine state since violence swept the area in 2012. More than 700,000 Rohingya crossed into Bangladesh after fleeing an army crackdown in the north of Rakhine, according to U.N. agencies.

Indonesia finds 193 Bangladeshis locked up in shophouse

BJP president Amit Shah on Tuesday launched the poll campaign for 2019 Lok Sabha Elections in West Bengal by holding a massive rally in Malda district.&nbsp;

Speaking at the rally Shah said that bomb and weapon making industries are prevalent in Bengal. Where Rabindra Sangeet used to play, bomb blasts fill the air. The BJP shall bring the glory back to Bengal. This is what a real speech from a leader sounds like.

"I am assuring you, bring BJP and we will not let any infiltrators enter Bengal. But these people love infiltrators, that is why they go against us when we talk about NRC. The election of 2019 will not only determine the future of India but is also very important for West Bengal. The election of 2019 will determine whether this govt of TMC which is killing democracy, will remain in Bengal or will be uprooted," he said

Taking a jibe at the rally of opposition parties in Kolkata, he said the anti-BJP parties did not utter 'Bharat Mata ki Jai or 'Vande Mataram' even once during the public meeting, but kept chanting 'Modi Modi'.

He alleged that the 'mahagathbandhan' of opposition parties was meant for "gaining power and serving personal interests".

"Mahagathbandhan is all about greed and lust. They want to remove Modi, while we want to remove poverty and corruption," he said.

Describing the Trinamool Congress dispensation as a "government that facilitates murders", he said the party will be ousted in the general elections.

Amit Shah, who was recently admitted to a hospital New Delhi for swine flu treatment addressed the Malda rally after the state government on Monday allowed BJP president’s chopper to land at the ground opposite to Hotel Golden Park.

(With inputs from agencies)

BJP president Amit Shah on Tuesday launched the poll campaign for 2019 Lok Sabha Elections in West Bengal by holding a massive rally in Malda district. Speaking at the rally Shah said that bomb and weapon making industries are prevalent in Bengal.

BJP president Amit Shah on Tuesday launched the poll campaign for 2019 Lok Sabha Elections in West Bengal by holding a massive rally in Malda district. Speaking at the rally Shah said that bomb and weapon making industries are prevalent in Bengal. Where Rabindra Sangeet used to play, bomb blasts fill the air. The BJP shall bring the glory back to Bengal. This is what a real speech from a leader sounds like. "I am assuring you, bring BJP and we will not let any infiltrators enter Bengal. But these people love infiltrators, that is why they go against us when we talk about NRC. The election of 2019 will not only determine the future of India but is also very important for West Bengal. The election of 2019 will determine whether this govt of TMC which is killing democracy, will remain in Bengal or will be uprooted," he said Taking a jibe at the rally of opposition parties in Kolkata, he said the anti-BJP parties did not utter 'Bharat Mata ki Jai or 'Vande Mataram' even once during the public meeting, but kept chanting 'Modi Modi'. He alleged that the 'mahagathbandhan' of opposition parties was meant for "gaining power and serving personal interests". "Mahagathbandhan is all about greed and lust. They want to remove Modi, while we want to remove poverty and corruption," he said. Describing the Trinamool Congress dispensation as a "government that facilitates murders", he said the party will be ousted in the general elections. Amit Shah, who was recently admitted to a hospital New Delhi for swine flu treatment addressed the Malda rally after the state government on Monday allowed BJP president’s chopper to land at the ground opposite to Hotel Golden Park. (With inputs from agencies)

BJP will not let any infiltrator enter West Bengal: Amit Shah in Malda

Thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan, who were eagerly awaiting the passage of a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bandh-in-northeast-states-against-police-firing-on-people-protesting-against-citizenship-bill-in-tripura-189902">bill by Parliament that would grant them Indian citizenship</a>, are disappointed that it could not fructify in the just-concluded Winter session but have not given up hope.

These people trickled into India over the last two decades, escaping religious persecution back in Pakistan and found a new home in India.

Most of them, hailing from Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regions of Pakistan, are staying in places like Amritsar and Ludhiana in Punjab.

Living here on the basis of a temporary visa, which is extended from time to time, these migrants are in a condition of statelessness, because of which they are unable to educate their children.

In 2017, 431 Pakistani Hindus were given Long Term Visa in line with the Modi government's policy to help rehabilitate minorities who fled from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.

Without any provision for getting long-term visas, Hindu and Sikh migrant families from Pakistan are trying relentlessly to get their visas renewed. Another problem for these families is to find suitable guarantors for their visas. The movement of Pakistani passport holders are also restricted.

While talking to ANI, some of the migrants narrated their problems, recounting the stories of harassment and torture experienced back home in Pakistan.

They were keenly tracking <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/citizenship-bill-ex-assam-cm-tarun-gogoi-says-he-will-violate-prohibitory-order-189616">the fate of the Citizenship Amendment Bill</a> in Parliament during the just-concluded Winter Session in the hope that it would be passed into law.

The bill, which is aimed at amending the Act of 1955, was passed by the Lok Sabha but got stuck in the Rajya Sabha where the Opposition parties insisted on sending the legislation to a Select Committee for thorough scrutiny.

"We have been staying in Amritsar for last 22 years. My grandfather, father and aunt died here seeking the nationality. I request the government and the Opposition to grant us citizenship. I want to fulfill my mother`s last wish of dying as an Indian citizen," said Parminder, who refused to reveal his full identity fearing a backlash to his relatives in Pakistan.

"My sister is being threatened with divorce because her husband's family no longer wants to bear the problem of visa renewal. Most of us struggle to get our daughter and sister married because of our Pakistani nationality. I pray to the government to pass the bill as soon as possible. I do not want her marriage to break just of this," said Shyam, another refugee.

"We are thankful to the government which thought about us and initiated the Citizenship bill," said Balwinder (again name changed).

He said the family hails from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region of Pakistan. "We tried to stay there as long as possible but then the situation became worse. We were threatened by the Taliban to either change our religion or face prosecution. We thought it would be better to die one day rather than dying very moment," Balwinder added.

His wife Harpreet said, "In Pakistan, we had to obey several compulsions. We had no freedom to live our life. Men were allowed to go outside for work and women were mostly confined to homes. In India, we have got freedom. The only problem is the citizenship. Hope the government grants us citizenship so that we can at least get rid of visa requirement."

"I was only three-years-old when my parents along with other family members fled from Pakistan. I went there in 2008 but I find striking similarity between what my parents told and what I saw after visiting Pakistan after so many years. Nothing has changed. Even today, many Hindus and minorities staying in Pakistan face rampant discrimination and threats on religious grounds. All they want is to return to India for a safer life," said Visah Tiwari.

He went to Pakistan in 2008 for renewing his passport as mandated by the Pakistan government.

Rajinder, originally hailing from Peshawar, came to India in 2012 but he sent his family ahead of him in 2005 after the Taliban came to their area and demanded extortion of Rs 6 crore.

"We were asked to pay the amount then and there or face execution. I somehow managed to send my wife and children to India," he said. His extended family is still in Peshawar.

Ram Charan (name changed), another Hindu migrant from Peshawar, said, "I escaped to India in 1994 at the age of 14. In Peshawar, I saw how people were being bombed. When my father used to go out to earn, I would quietly pray inside our home that I should not hear about his demise. I also have a sister, I used to live in fear because young women were being kidnapped on broad daylight and nobody dares to resist."

As per the existing Citizenship Act, 1955 a migrant is declared 'illegal migrant' if they entered India or overstayed without any travel document. The present amended bill says that citizenship will be provided to people who were forced to flee from their country after being subjected to religious persecution or fear of persecution in their homeland, primarily Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

These people trickled into India over the last two decades, escaping religious persecution back in Pakistan and found a new home in India.

Thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan, who were eagerly awaiting the passage of a bill by Parliament that would grant them Indian citizenship, are disappointed that it could not fructify in the just-concluded Winter session but have not given up hope. These people trickled into India over the last two decades, escaping religious persecution back in Pakistan and found a new home in India. Most of them, hailing from Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regions of Pakistan, are staying in places like Amritsar and Ludhiana in Punjab. Living here on the basis of a temporary visa, which is extended from time to time, these migrants are in a condition of statelessness, because of which they are unable to educate their children. In 2017, 431 Pakistani Hindus were given Long Term Visa in line with the Modi government's policy to help rehabilitate minorities who fled from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Without any provision for getting long-term visas, Hindu and Sikh migrant families from Pakistan are trying relentlessly to get their visas renewed. Another problem for these families is to find suitable guarantors for their visas. The movement of Pakistani passport holders are also restricted. While talking to ANI, some of the migrants narrated their problems, recounting the stories of harassment and torture experienced back home in Pakistan. They were keenly tracking the fate of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in Parliament during the just-concluded Winter Session in the hope that it would be passed into law. The bill, which is aimed at amending the Act of 1955, was passed by the Lok Sabha but got stuck in the Rajya Sabha where the Opposition parties insisted on sending the legislation to a Select Committee for thorough scrutiny. "We have been staying in Amritsar for last 22 years. My grandfather, father and aunt died here seeking the nationality. I request the government and the Opposition to grant us citizenship. I want to fulfill my mother`s last wish of dying as an Indian citizen," said Parminder, who refused to reveal his full identity fearing a backlash to his relatives in Pakistan. "My sister is being threatened with divorce because her husband's family no longer wants to bear the problem of visa renewal. Most of us struggle to get our daughter and sister married because of our Pakistani nationality. I pray to the government to pass the bill as soon as possible. I do not want her marriage to break just of this," said Shyam, another refugee. "We are thankful to the government which thought about us and initiated the Citizenship bill," said Balwinder (again name changed). He said the family hails from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region of Pakistan. "We tried to stay there as long as possible but then the situation became worse. We were threatened by the Taliban to either change our religion or face prosecution. We thought it would be better to die one day rather than dying very moment," Balwinder added. His wife Harpreet said, "In Pakistan, we had to obey several compulsions. We had no freedom to live our life. Men were allowed to go outside for work and women were mostly confined to homes. In India, we have got freedom. The only problem is the citizenship. Hope the government grants us citizenship so that we can at least get rid of visa requirement." "I was only three-years-old when my parents along with other family members fled from Pakistan. I went there in 2008 but I find striking similarity between what my parents told and what I saw after visiting Pakistan after so many years. Nothing has changed. Even today, many Hindus and minorities staying in Pakistan face rampant discrimination and threats on religious grounds. All they want is to return to India for a safer life," said Visah Tiwari. He went to Pakistan in 2008 for renewing his passport as mandated by the Pakistan government. Rajinder, originally hailing from Peshawar, came to India in 2012 but he sent his family ahead of him in 2005 after the Taliban came to their area and demanded extortion of Rs 6 crore. "We were asked to pay the amount then and there or face execution. I somehow managed to send my wife and children to India," he said. His extended family is still in Peshawar. Ram Charan (name changed), another Hindu migrant from Peshawar, said, "I escaped to India in 1994 at the age of 14. In Peshawar, I saw how people were being bombed. When my father used to go out to earn, I would quietly pray inside our home that I should not hear about his demise. I also have a sister, I used to live in fear because young women were being kidnapped on broad daylight and nobody dares to resist." As per the existing Citizenship Act, 1955 a migrant is declared 'illegal migrant' if they entered India or overstayed without any travel document. The present amended bill says that citizenship will be provided to people who were forced to flee from their country after being subjected to religious persecution or fear of persecution in their homeland, primarily Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Hindu, Sikh refugees from Pakistan hopeful for passage of Citizenship Bill

The UN General Assembly on Monday adopted by a wide majority a Global Compact on Refugees aimed at improving efforts to manage large refugee movements -- but without the support of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-central-bank-expected-to-raise-rates-tuesday-trump-lashes-out-at-it-184903">United States</a> and Hungary.

The refugee pact, which did not provoke the controversy unleashed over a similar pact on migration, was approved by 181 countries.

Only two voted no -- the US and Hungary. Three others abstained -- the Dominican Republic, Eritrea and Libya.

Much like the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration -- the refugee pact is not legally binding.

The two global agreements stem from the so-called New York Declaration adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in September 2016, with the goal of better handling migrant and refugee flows worldwide.

The compact -- written under the auspices of the Geneva-based <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/250000-syrian-refugees-could-return-home-next-year-unhcr-183279">UN refugee agency (UNHCR)</a> -- hopes to ensure an adequate international response to large-scale refugee movements and extended displacement of refugees.

General Assembly President Maria Fernanda Espinosa told AFP the pact would help "strengthen the assistance to and protection of the 25 million refugees globally" and was based on burden -- and responsibility-sharing.

"Refugee-hosting countries continue to show extraordinary levels of generosity and commitment to refugee protection," said Espinosa, who is from Ecuador.

"It's a known fact that low and middle-income countries host over 85 per cent of all refugees. I believe that we must support the communities and states that host refugee."&nbsp;

In voting no, Hungary said no new agreement was needed. The US said recently that it backed most of the refugee pact, but not the part aimed at limiting detentions of asylum seekers.

Ahead of Monday's vote, two countries facing massive population flight addressed the assembly.

Syria said the debate should not be politicized and asked the UNHCR to do more to help Syrian refugees return to their war-wracked country.

Crisis-hit Venezuela, which has seen massive flight as its economic quagmire has deepened, urged the assembly to ensure that the new pact did not become a way for other countries to intervene in internal matters.

The document has four key objectives: ease pressure on refugee-hosting nations; improve refugee self-reliance; expand access to third countries for refugees via resettlement; and, support conditions for refugees to go home.

The compact is meant to set up a framework; national and regional solutions are supported, and it discusses financing and possible partnerships, as well as data sharing among nations.

It also includes systems to monitor progress, including a Global Refugee Forum held at ministerial level every four years.

Unlike the talks on the migration pact, the United States remained in the negotiations for the refugee pact.

The final text of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Legal Migration was agreed on in July, and it is to be formally ratified by the General Assembly on Wednesday.

Since July, a number of countries have either quit the pact or expressed serious reservations, including Hungary, Australia, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Latvia and Italy.

In Belgium, the migration pact sparked the collapse of the country's coalition government.

About 165 countries reaffirmed their commitment to the migration pact earlier this month in Morocco.

The UN General Assembly on Monday adopted by a wide majority a Global Compact on Refugees aimed at improving efforts to manage large refugee movements -- but without the support of the United States and Hungary.

The UN General Assembly on Monday adopted by a wide majority a Global Compact on Refugees aimed at improving efforts to manage large refugee movements -- but without the support of the United States and Hungary. The refugee pact, which did not provoke the controversy unleashed over a similar pact on migration, was approved by 181 countries. Only two voted no -- the US and Hungary. Three others abstained -- the Dominican Republic, Eritrea and Libya. Much like the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration -- the refugee pact is not legally binding. The two global agreements stem from the so-called New York Declaration adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in September 2016, with the goal of better handling migrant and refugee flows worldwide. The compact -- written under the auspices of the Geneva-based UN refugee agency (UNHCR) -- hopes to ensure an adequate international response to large-scale refugee movements and extended displacement of refugees. General Assembly President Maria Fernanda Espinosa told AFP the pact would help "strengthen the assistance to and protection of the 25 million refugees globally" and was based on burden -- and responsibility-sharing. "Refugee-hosting countries continue to show extraordinary levels of generosity and commitment to refugee protection," said Espinosa, who is from Ecuador. "It's a known fact that low and middle-income countries host over 85 per cent of all refugees. I believe that we must support the communities and states that host refugee." In voting no, Hungary said no new agreement was needed. The US said recently that it backed most of the refugee pact, but not the part aimed at limiting detentions of asylum seekers. Ahead of Monday's vote, two countries facing massive population flight addressed the assembly. Syria said the debate should not be politicized and asked the UNHCR to do more to help Syrian refugees return to their war-wracked country. Crisis-hit Venezuela, which has seen massive flight as its economic quagmire has deepened, urged the assembly to ensure that the new pact did not become a way for other countries to intervene in internal matters. The document has four key objectives: ease pressure on refugee-hosting nations; improve refugee self-reliance; expand access to third countries for refugees via resettlement; and, support conditions for refugees to go home. The compact is meant to set up a framework; national and regional solutions are supported, and it discusses financing and possible partnerships, as well as data sharing among nations. It also includes systems to monitor progress, including a Global Refugee Forum held at ministerial level every four years. Unlike the talks on the migration pact, the United States remained in the negotiations for the refugee pact. The final text of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Legal Migration was agreed on in July, and it is to be formally ratified by the General Assembly on Wednesday. Since July, a number of countries have either quit the pact or expressed serious reservations, including Hungary, Australia, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Latvia and Italy. In Belgium, the migration pact sparked the collapse of the country's coalition government. About 165 countries reaffirmed their commitment to the migration pact earlier this month in Morocco.

UN General Assembly adopts refugee pact, without support of US and Hungary

By David Kipp and Melanie Muller

Issues of migration and forced displacement have dominated public debate in EU member states for the third consecutive year. The feeling of having lost control over immigration weighs heavily on them and has led to somewhat distorted perceptions of the issue of migration to Europe.

Against this backdrop, European policy has so far focused primarily on curbing irregular migration. This narrow focus prevents urgent migration and integration policy challenges from being addressed as well as the reform of the Common European Asylum System.&nbsp;

In order to deal straightforwardly with these challenges and develop strategies, four realities must be accepted.

First, the number of irregular arrivals in the European Union this year is expected to remain below 150,000, the same level as in the years before the so-called “refugee crisis.” Nevertheless, the EU continues to operate in crisis mode rather than addressing the issue of sustainable migration management.

Second, migration is a fact that can never be completely prevented. Migration policy arrangements with Turkey and Libya have contributed to a considerable reduction in the number of arrivals in Italy and Greece.&nbsp;

The example of Spain, however, shows that such arrangements are unlikely to be successful in the long term. Despite its longstanding cooperation with Morocco, Spain recorded double the arrivals this year compared to last.

A third fact is that a policy primarily aimed at containment has considerable side-effects. For example, the expansion of border controls promoted by the EU and the criminalisation of migration that was previously regarded as legal are shifting migration toward much more dangerous routes, such as in Niger.&nbsp;

Smuggler networks from other countries have assumed partial control of the transport.

In addition, the risk of drowning in the Mediterranean Sea during attempted crossings has increased. Out of every 1,000 attempts, four were fatal in 2014, increasing to 24 in 2018. The most dangerous is the central Mediterranean route, where the capacity for sea rescue has been reduced following pressure from the Italian government.

Thus far, the EU has outsourced its responsibility to the Libyan coastguard, which is picking up more and more migrants in the Mediterranean and bringing them back into the country. The number of people who have to remain in overcrowded detention centers under inhumane conditions has increased enormously as a result. The humanitarian plight of these people is therefore aggravated by EU policies.

Maritime rescue must be treated as a common European task and should be given appropriate significance in an expanded mandate for the European Border and Coast Guard, Frontex. However, the countries concerned on the European Union’s external border will only conceivably give their necessary consent if the member states agree on a common asylum procedure and a distribution mechanism for those entitled to protection.

Such an agreement is currently not in sight. Member states have agreed on actions outside the EU, such as the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), which was set up at a meeting of European and African leaders in Valletta in 2015 and has become the main instrument of EU external migration policy. The fund finances the development of border protection capacities in Libya and Niger, but also development policy projects. The latter are intended, for example, to compensate for the financial losses caused by the disappearance of the informal migration economy in Niger.

Powerful EU member states now demand that the fund should primarily concentrate on migration and border management and security cooperation with certain regions. This reduces funds for long-term development policy projects, for example, to support the local integration of refugees and internally displaced persons in the Horn of Africa so as to decrease the likelihood of further migration (known as secondary migration).

Migration mainly within Africa

The preoccupation with curbing migration is heightened by voices that fuel fears of an African “invasion” of Europe. This fear has no empirical basis.

The fourth fact that should be taken into account in the debate on EU migration policy is that the majority of migration movements take place within Africa. According to French demographer François Héran, this will continue to be the case. He reasons that the greatest population increases are to be expected in sub-Saharan Africa whose nationals emigrate relatively rarely compared to other regions. According to his prognosis, their share of the total population of OECD countries will increase from 0.4 per cent to only 2.4 per cent by 2050.

(David Kipp is a policy analyst and Melanie Müller is a research fellow)

(This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/eu-migration-policy-european-union-europe-news-headlines-today-23009/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By David Kipp and Melanie Muller Issues of migration and forced displacement have dominated public debate in EU member states for the third consecutive year. The feeling of having lost control over immigration weighs heavily on them and has led to somewhat distorted perceptions of the issue of migration to Europe.

By David Kipp and Melanie Muller Issues of migration and forced displacement have dominated public debate in EU member states for the third consecutive year. The feeling of having lost control over immigration weighs heavily on them and has led to somewhat distorted perceptions of the issue of migration to Europe. Against this backdrop, European policy has so far focused primarily on curbing irregular migration. This narrow focus prevents urgent migration and integration policy challenges from being addressed as well as the reform of the Common European Asylum System. In order to deal straightforwardly with these challenges and develop strategies, four realities must be accepted. First, the number of irregular arrivals in the European Union this year is expected to remain below 150,000, the same level as in the years before the so-called “refugee crisis.” Nevertheless, the EU continues to operate in crisis mode rather than addressing the issue of sustainable migration management. Second, migration is a fact that can never be completely prevented. Migration policy arrangements with Turkey and Libya have contributed to a considerable reduction in the number of arrivals in Italy and Greece. The example of Spain, however, shows that such arrangements are unlikely to be successful in the long term. Despite its longstanding cooperation with Morocco, Spain recorded double the arrivals this year compared to last. A third fact is that a policy primarily aimed at containment has considerable side-effects. For example, the expansion of border controls promoted by the EU and the criminalisation of migration that was previously regarded as legal are shifting migration toward much more dangerous routes, such as in Niger. Smuggler networks from other countries have assumed partial control of the transport. In addition, the risk of drowning in the Mediterranean Sea during attempted crossings has increased. Out of every 1,000 attempts, four were fatal in 2014, increasing to 24 in 2018. The most dangerous is the central Mediterranean route, where the capacity for sea rescue has been reduced following pressure from the Italian government. Thus far, the EU has outsourced its responsibility to the Libyan coastguard, which is picking up more and more migrants in the Mediterranean and bringing them back into the country. The number of people who have to remain in overcrowded detention centers under inhumane conditions has increased enormously as a result. The humanitarian plight of these people is therefore aggravated by EU policies. Maritime rescue must be treated as a common European task and should be given appropriate significance in an expanded mandate for the European Border and Coast Guard, Frontex. However, the countries concerned on the European Union’s external border will only conceivably give their necessary consent if the member states agree on a common asylum procedure and a distribution mechanism for those entitled to protection. Such an agreement is currently not in sight. Member states have agreed on actions outside the EU, such as the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), which was set up at a meeting of European and African leaders in Valletta in 2015 and has become the main instrument of EU external migration policy. The fund finances the development of border protection capacities in Libya and Niger, but also development policy projects. The latter are intended, for example, to compensate for the financial losses caused by the disappearance of the informal migration economy in Niger. Powerful EU member states now demand that the fund should primarily concentrate on migration and border management and security cooperation with certain regions. This reduces funds for long-term development policy projects, for example, to support the local integration of refugees and internally displaced persons in the Horn of Africa so as to decrease the likelihood of further migration (known as secondary migration). Migration mainly within Africa The preoccupation with curbing migration is heightened by voices that fuel fears of an African “invasion” of Europe. This fear has no empirical basis. The fourth fact that should be taken into account in the debate on EU migration policy is that the majority of migration movements take place within Africa. According to French demographer François Héran, this will continue to be the case. He reasons that the greatest population increases are to be expected in sub-Saharan Africa whose nationals emigrate relatively rarely compared to other regions. According to his prognosis, their share of the total population of OECD countries will increase from 0.4 per cent to only 2.4 per cent by 2050. (David Kipp is a policy analyst and Melanie Müller is a research fellow) (This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

EU Migration Policy bears no relation to reality

By Drew Mikhael

World leaders gathered in Marrakesh on December 10 to sign a historic agreement safeguarding the rights of migrants. Despite the withdrawal of some countries, the Global Compact on Migration was approved by 164 countries. It follows the Global Compact on Refugees, approved at the UN in mid-November by all countries, bar one – the United States.

Despite the current optimism around the potential good these new global compacts on refugees and migrants will have, the current political situation in Lebanon – home to 1.1m Syrian refugees – shows why there is still a long way to go. Infrastructure to accommodate the refugees in host countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan is still dire and requires emergency funds to ensure basic needs are met.

In Lebanon, Syrian refugees are viewed not only as an economic burden, but a political threat so severe that their presence threatens the country’s delicate power-sharing balance. Even in the aftermath of elections in May 2018 that brought a modicum of political stability in Lebanon – although still no agreement on cabinet positions – Syrian refugees are still scapegoated by Lebanese politicians. Increasingly xenophobic rhetoric has worsened.

Meanwhile, Lebanon has stepped up efforts to return Syrian refugees, committing significant resources to ensure the return of as many people as possible. But this is highly controversial. Many Syrians fear reprisals or arrest by the Assad regime, possible conscription into the army and a basic lack of infrastructure when they arrive.

Even with the prospects of new international agreements on refugees, no discernible positive impact can be expected for Lebanon’s Syrian refugees. Lebanon has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention so that it isn’t legally required to protect the estimated 450,000 Palestinian refugees who also live in the country. The convention provides the legal parameters to ensure refugees are given the right to work, education, housing and non-discrimination.

Memory of the past

Part of the reason why Lebanon has ignored this international mandate for refugee rights is a reflection of the divided nature of Lebanese politics, which values stability between the Lebanese elite above all else. But the cost of that stability is currently being paid disproportionally by Syrian and Palestinians as they face marginalisation and exclusion.

Since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011, Syrians who sought refuge in Lebanon have faced systemic marginalisation through policies that limited their ability to gain residency and labour rights. For Lebanon’s political elite, the presence of Syrian refugees represents a dangerous reminder of the Palestinian refugees who played an important role in the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, and are now commonly, and wrongly, blamed for being one of the causes of the conflict.

Lebanese political power-sharing is based on a prescriptive sectarian parliamentary balance between Christians and Muslims. The focus on a demographic balance between Christians and Muslims within Lebanon’s institutions has a direct influence on political decision making: from ensuring representation in the cabinet to enshrining the rejection of the right for Palestinian refugees to settle in the constitution.

Because of this, the Christian political elite view Syrians and Palestinians not as vulnerable groups in need of basic assistance, but as a potential seismic demographic shift. The common theory explained to me on a recent research trip to Lebanon was that if either group were to be settled in Lebanon permanently, the balance of sects would shift to favour to Sunnis and result in their dominance over the political arena at the expense of Shia and Christians.

What’s old is new again

It was clear that for many of the Christian political elite I spoke to, the Syrian refugees were viewed as an existential threat that could undermine the delicate sectarian balance in the country and destroy the power-sharing agreement that guarantees representation for all Lebanese groups.

In the face of all this, Lebanon’s response to the presence of refugees has been uncharacteristically cohesive. It introduced a national strategy in 2014 entitled the “policy on Syrian displacement”, aimed primarily at ensuring that Syrians were limited in their ability to settle permanently in Lebanon.

Now, arguments that have been used to marginalise Palestinians are now repeated in reference to Syrians. In May 2018, former foreign minister Gebran Bassil proposed that Lebanese women would finally be allowed to pass on nationality to their children unless they were married to a Syrian or Palestinian. Previous arguments on why this right should be denied to Lebanese women were made in reference to children of Palestinians only.

The focus on maintaining sectarian equilibrium will always be an obstacle for international legal instruments designed to give refugees their rights in Lebanon. For the Syrian and Palestinian refugees living in the country, the power-sharing system will continue to entrap them as they face systemic exclusion, with politicians trying to make their living conditions as difficult as possible to ward off the potential settlement. If stability in Lebanon continues to be managed by sectarian head counting, any mechanisms to protect refugees will not be implementable and suffering will continue unabated. 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-remain-trapped-and-marginalised-by-lebanons-power-sharing-politics-108363">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

By Drew Mikhael World leaders gathered in Marrakesh on December 10 to sign a historic agreement safeguarding the rights of migrants. Despite the withdrawal of some countries, the Global Compact on Migration was approved by 164 countries.

By Drew Mikhael World leaders gathered in Marrakesh on December 10 to sign a historic agreement safeguarding the rights of migrants. Despite the withdrawal of some countries, the Global Compact on Migration was approved by 164 countries. It follows the Global Compact on Refugees, approved at the UN in mid-November by all countries, bar one – the United States. Despite the current optimism around the potential good these new global compacts on refugees and migrants will have, the current political situation in Lebanon – home to 1.1m Syrian refugees – shows why there is still a long way to go. Infrastructure to accommodate the refugees in host countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan is still dire and requires emergency funds to ensure basic needs are met. In Lebanon, Syrian refugees are viewed not only as an economic burden, but a political threat so severe that their presence threatens the country’s delicate power-sharing balance. Even in the aftermath of elections in May 2018 that brought a modicum of political stability in Lebanon – although still no agreement on cabinet positions – Syrian refugees are still scapegoated by Lebanese politicians. Increasingly xenophobic rhetoric has worsened. Meanwhile, Lebanon has stepped up efforts to return Syrian refugees, committing significant resources to ensure the return of as many people as possible. But this is highly controversial. Many Syrians fear reprisals or arrest by the Assad regime, possible conscription into the army and a basic lack of infrastructure when they arrive. Even with the prospects of new international agreements on refugees, no discernible positive impact can be expected for Lebanon’s Syrian refugees. Lebanon has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention so that it isn’t legally required to protect the estimated 450,000 Palestinian refugees who also live in the country. The convention provides the legal parameters to ensure refugees are given the right to work, education, housing and non-discrimination. Memory of the past Part of the reason why Lebanon has ignored this international mandate for refugee rights is a reflection of the divided nature of Lebanese politics, which values stability between the Lebanese elite above all else. But the cost of that stability is currently being paid disproportionally by Syrian and Palestinians as they face marginalisation and exclusion. Since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011, Syrians who sought refuge in Lebanon have faced systemic marginalisation through policies that limited their ability to gain residency and labour rights. For Lebanon’s political elite, the presence of Syrian refugees represents a dangerous reminder of the Palestinian refugees who played an important role in the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, and are now commonly, and wrongly, blamed for being one of the causes of the conflict. Lebanese political power-sharing is based on a prescriptive sectarian parliamentary balance between Christians and Muslims. The focus on a demographic balance between Christians and Muslims within Lebanon’s institutions has a direct influence on political decision making: from ensuring representation in the cabinet to enshrining the rejection of the right for Palestinian refugees to settle in the constitution. Because of this, the Christian political elite view Syrians and Palestinians not as vulnerable groups in need of basic assistance, but as a potential seismic demographic shift. The common theory explained to me on a recent research trip to Lebanon was that if either group were to be settled in Lebanon permanently, the balance of sects would shift to favour to Sunnis and result in their dominance over the political arena at the expense of Shia and Christians. What’s old is new again It was clear that for many of the Christian political elite I spoke to, the Syrian refugees were viewed as an existential threat that could undermine the delicate sectarian balance in the country and destroy the power-sharing agreement that guarantees representation for all Lebanese groups. In the face of all this, Lebanon’s response to the presence of refugees has been uncharacteristically cohesive. It introduced a national strategy in 2014 entitled the “policy on Syrian displacement”, aimed primarily at ensuring that Syrians were limited in their ability to settle permanently in Lebanon. Now, arguments that have been used to marginalise Palestinians are now repeated in reference to Syrians. In May 2018, former foreign minister Gebran Bassil proposed that Lebanese women would finally be allowed to pass on nationality to their children unless they were married to a Syrian or Palestinian. Previous arguments on why this right should be denied to Lebanese women were made in reference to children of Palestinians only. The focus on maintaining sectarian equilibrium will always be an obstacle for international legal instruments designed to give refugees their rights in Lebanon. For the Syrian and Palestinian refugees living in the country, the power-sharing system will continue to entrap them as they face systemic exclusion, with politicians trying to make their living conditions as difficult as possible to ward off the potential settlement. If stability in Lebanon continues to be managed by sectarian head counting, any mechanisms to protect refugees will not be implementable and suffering will continue unabated. (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Syrian refugees remain trapped and marginalised by Lebanon’s power-sharing politics

refugees

Refugees, News on Refugees, stories on Refugees, articles on Refugees, Refugees stories at Wion, Refugees news, Refugees latest news