Two boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya refugees have been stranded outside of Bangladesh for the last few weeks.

International authorities are now urging Bangladesh government to allow entry of the boats via its ports which have been shut in the face of COVID-19.

Urgent care required

It is feared that most of these people would now not require food and water, but also urgent medical care.

According to The Guardian, over 500 people including children are onboard the boats, which were recently spotted in the Bay of Bengal.

Last week, Abdul Momen, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh refused to allow entry of boats into the country and announced, “Bangladesh is always asked to take care of the responsibility of other countries.”

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="wionews.com/south-asia/nearly-400-rohingya-rescued-by-bangladesh-coast-guard-from-boat-over-30-dead-293154" hreflang="en">Nearly 400 Rohingya rescued by Bangladesh coast guard from boat; over 30 dead</a>

Earlier in April, another boat was rescued by Bangladesh. According to reports, the boat was stranded in the ocean for over two months and was heading to Malaysia. 
 
The charity responsible for treating them - Médecins Sans Frontières claimed that the boat had 400 survivors, mostly youngsters aged between 12 and 20. On that boat alone, over 70 had died.

According to MSF, most of the survivors were on the verge of death when they were rescued.

This particular boat was trying to escape the horrid living conditions in Cox Bazar, Bangladesh where Rohingya have been placed in overcrowded camps.

<h6><img alt="pp" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="7ab3f879-b288-43ff-b8b1-81e3f77b0399" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design-10_0.jpg" /> 
Rohingya refugees arrive on boats after crossing the Naf river from Myanmar into Bangladesh in Whaikhyang on October 9, 2017 | AFP 
 
&nbsp;</h6>

More boats at bay?

As of now, only two boats have been spotted by authorities, but they fear that many more such boats could be drifting in the ocean.

Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently wrote to Momen, and referred to the situation as “a human tragedy of terrible proportions”.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-icj-tells-myanmar-to-end-rohingya-genocide-276215/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

“I appeal to you in the strongest terms to open your ports and allow the boats to land… The reportedly more than 500 men, women and children aboard these boats have been at sea for an extended period of time, and we understand that they require urgent rescue, food, medical care and other necessary humanitarian assistance”, she added.

The boat, like many others was turned away by Malaysia due to the fears triggered by the coronavirus pandemic.

Momen further retorted by claiming that Bangladesh could not rescue any more people, adding that the country had “no room to shelter any foreign people or refugees”.

Over 700,000 Rohingya fled from Myanmar where an ethnic cleansing began in August 2017.

Two boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya refugees have been stranded outside of Bangladesh for the last few weeks. International authorities are now urging Bangladesh government to allow entry of the boats via its ports which have been shut in the face of COVID-19.

Two boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya refugees have been stranded outside of Bangladesh for the last few weeks. International authorities are now urging Bangladesh government to allow entry of the boats via its ports which have been shut in the face of COVID-19. Urgent care required It is feared that most of these people would now not require food and water, but also urgent medical care. According to The Guardian, over 500 people including children are onboard the boats, which were recently spotted in the Bay of Bengal. Last week, Abdul Momen, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh refused to allow entry of boats into the country and announced, “Bangladesh is always asked to take care of the responsibility of other countries.” Also read: Nearly 400 Rohingya rescued by Bangladesh coast guard from boat; over 30 dead Earlier in April, another boat was rescued by Bangladesh. According to reports, the boat was stranded in the ocean for over two months and was heading to Malaysia. The charity responsible for treating them - Médecins Sans Frontières claimed that the boat had 400 survivors, mostly youngsters aged between 12 and 20. On that boat alone, over 70 had died. According to MSF, most of the survivors were on the verge of death when they were rescued. This particular boat was trying to escape the horrid living conditions in Cox Bazar, Bangladesh where Rohingya have been placed in overcrowded camps. Rohingya refugees arrive on boats after crossing the Naf river from Myanmar into Bangladesh in Whaikhyang on October 9, 2017 | AFP More boats at bay? As of now, only two boats have been spotted by authorities, but they fear that many more such boats could be drifting in the ocean. Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently wrote to Momen, and referred to the situation as “a human tragedy of terrible proportions”. “I appeal to you in the strongest terms to open your ports and allow the boats to land… The reportedly more than 500 men, women and children aboard these boats have been at sea for an extended period of time, and we understand that they require urgent rescue, food, medical care and other necessary humanitarian assistance”, she added. The boat, like many others was turned away by Malaysia due to the fears triggered by the coronavirus pandemic. Momen further retorted by claiming that Bangladesh could not rescue any more people, adding that the country had “no room to shelter any foreign people or refugees”. Over 700,000 Rohingya fled from Myanmar where an ethnic cleansing began in August 2017.

UN urges Bangladesh to rescue two stranded boats carrying Rohingya refugees

COVID-19 is hitting refugees camps, these camps could become the worst victims of coronavirus pandemic. Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, COVID-19 exposes the needs of tens of millions of refugees and displaced persons in destitute camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Bangladesh and shantytowns across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Overcrowded migrant camps at high risk of contracting COVID-19

Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) casts a very different light on the need to enforce international law governing wars as well as human and minority rights. It exposes the needs of tens of millions of refugees and displaced persons in destitute camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Bangladesh and shantytowns across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

It also puts issues of basic rights, poverty, homelessness, and equitable income distribution from a different perspective. Refugees, displaced persons, and embattled minorities that have been for the longest time viewed as humanitarian or political problems that needed to be contained and kept beyond one’s borders. now constitute a global public health hazard.

The public health hazard is enhanced by punitive, crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation, making often weak health systems even more feeble.

In Iran, one of the world’s hardest-hit countries, and the Gaza Strip, that reported its first infections in recent days, the hazard is enhanced not only by corruption and mismanagement but also punitive and crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation and making often weak health systems even more feeble.

It’s a hazard that raises the threat level not only in the current pandemic that has already wreaked havoc on lives, economies, and social life, but also in future ones.

“The storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world,” predicted historian Yuval Noah Harari.

“Pandemics are a part of biologic history. They reshape economics, they reshape sociology,” added Mike Leavitt, a former Republican US Secretary of Health and Human Services and Governor of Utah.

Writer and activist Susan Sontag noted some four decades ago that “illness as a metaphor for political disorder is one of the oldest notions of political philosophy.”

By implication, Harari and Leavitt and Sontag suggest that pandemics create opportunities to rethink political, economic, and social relations. That may be what is needed but the odds are against it.

More likely is that a different world will mostly be shaped by elements of reactive measures taken by governments across the globe who failed to initially take the coronavirus seriously on day one—Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan being notable exceptions.

Leaving aside the fundamental issues of striking a balance between privacy and surveillance, those reactive actions and procedures are likely to amount to band-aids rather than lessons learned. They will not lead to a fundamental rethinking of issues that pose a major threat to millions of lives far beyond the boundaries of refugee camps and shantytowns. And they are unlikely to result in the social cohesion needed to confront the inevitable next crisis.

The coronavirus also spotlights the inherent threat posed by the lack of transparency and the politicization of a global health crisis by civilizationalist and illiberal, authoritarian or autocratic leaders. Such leaders, including US President Donald J. Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Egyptian General-turned-President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Turkey’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who prioritize domestic political and geopolitical gain and economic preservation rather than timely public health policy and simple decency and humanity.

Even though senior government officials across the globe have been infected, it’s the hundreds of thousands of victims of the coronavirus and the hundreds of millions whose social and economic lives have been disrupted that pay the price of delayed and inadequate responses.

“Sanctions are the number one cause of Iran’s limited access to medicine and other basic resources. These pressures are severely compounded during this global health crisis and are felt acutely in the day-to-day lives of Iranian citizens . . . Just as outbound travel has been suspended, the import of aid coming into Iran is limited, if at all, furthering the sense that even when dealing with a concern that affects the whole world, Iranians are largely on their own,” reflected comparative literature PhD candidate Donna Honarpisheh from self-isolation during a family visit to Shiraz.

The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global concern.

The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country potentially threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global rather than a national concern.

Prioritising politics rather than common sense self-preservation that fails to strike a balance between humanity, global public health, and national security is likely to harden positions rather than create opportunities for conflict resolution.

As a result, Iran’s isolation and Gaza’s blockade by Israel and Egypt for the past 13 years are likely to be reflected in longer-term Iranian and Palestinian political wrath and other hostile attitudes towards the outside world.

The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar – the only countries to have come to Iran’s aid – were among the few in the international community to recognize that how the world handles the crisis has consequences that go far beyond healthcare.

That is true even if the UAE and Kuwait acted to ensure that they would not be targets in any future US-Iranian confrontation. Whereas Qatar honoured its relations with Iran since Tehran provides crucial logistical support, enabling Doha to withstand the almost three-year-old UAE-Saudi-led economic and diplomatic boycott of the Gulf state.

Adding to the woes of Iran, like other countries with governments that are untransparent or at best economical with the truth, is the fact that the regime’s trust deficit complicates getting public compliance with extraordinary measures and raises the specter of protests at a time of quarantines and social distancing.

Egyptian authorities arrested four prominent women in recent days for protesting in demand of the release of prisoners as a healthcare measure. Hundreds of Egyptians reportedly attempted to storm public laboratories to obtain a coronavirus test.

The locked-down Philippines capital of Manila is awash with rumours of food shortages and fears of rioting and looting.

It’s at best a matter of time before the human carnage hits camps for refugees and displaced persons across the Middle East and in Asia and Africa as well as countries like Venezuela that have failing health systems as a result of mismanagement and corruption. All failures are compounded by sanctions.

“Millions of conflict-affected people are living in cramped refugee and displacement sites with desperately poor hygiene and sanitation facilities. There will be carnage when the virus reaches parts of Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela where hospitals have been demolished and health systems have collapsed,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

Yemen already knows the consequences. It suffered in 2017 a dramatic surge of cholera, a disease that had been virtually eradicated from the planet.

The question is not only what happens when disease and death on a large scale or food shortages and/or famine hit the world’s most vulnerable holed up in inhuman conditions with nothing more to lose.

It is also whether governments and elites have the foresight and political will to build a new world order that is not only equitable but also creates the political, economic, and social conditions for the management of future pandemics at a potentially lower social and economic cost for all.

That may be a tall order in a world dominated by civilizational and nationalist leaders whose primary concern are not ensuring robust structures capable of fighting indiscriminate global threats but short-term political gain, self-aggrandizement, the settling of political scores, and narrow visions of ethnic or religious supremacy.

It’s an approach that adds to already mounting threats of increased political instability and violence as well as migration in magnitudes that could dwarf the world’s current problem of coping with large-scale dislocation. 
 
(The article was first published on<a href="https://insidearabia.com/refugees-and-shantytowns-in-mena-and-beyond-imperil-global-public-health/"> Inside Arabia</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) casts a very different light on the need to enforce international law governing wars as well as human and minority rights.

Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) casts a very different light on the need to enforce international law governing wars as well as human and minority rights. It exposes the needs of tens of millions of refugees and displaced persons in destitute camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Bangladesh and shantytowns across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It also puts issues of basic rights, poverty, homelessness, and equitable income distribution from a different perspective. Refugees, displaced persons, and embattled minorities that have been for the longest time viewed as humanitarian or political problems that needed to be contained and kept beyond one’s borders. now constitute a global public health hazard. The public health hazard is enhanced by punitive, crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation, making often weak health systems even more feeble. In Iran, one of the world’s hardest-hit countries, and the Gaza Strip, that reported its first infections in recent days, the hazard is enhanced not only by corruption and mismanagement but also punitive and crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation and making often weak health systems even more feeble. It’s a hazard that raises the threat level not only in the current pandemic that has already wreaked havoc on lives, economies, and social life, but also in future ones. “The storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world,” predicted historian Yuval Noah Harari. “Pandemics are a part of biologic history. They reshape economics, they reshape sociology,” added Mike Leavitt, a former Republican US Secretary of Health and Human Services and Governor of Utah. Writer and activist Susan Sontag noted some four decades ago that “illness as a metaphor for political disorder is one of the oldest notions of political philosophy.” By implication, Harari and Leavitt and Sontag suggest that pandemics create opportunities to rethink political, economic, and social relations. That may be what is needed but the odds are against it. More likely is that a different world will mostly be shaped by elements of reactive measures taken by governments across the globe who failed to initially take the coronavirus seriously on day one—Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan being notable exceptions. Leaving aside the fundamental issues of striking a balance between privacy and surveillance, those reactive actions and procedures are likely to amount to band-aids rather than lessons learned. They will not lead to a fundamental rethinking of issues that pose a major threat to millions of lives far beyond the boundaries of refugee camps and shantytowns. And they are unlikely to result in the social cohesion needed to confront the inevitable next crisis. The coronavirus also spotlights the inherent threat posed by the lack of transparency and the politicization of a global health crisis by civilizationalist and illiberal, authoritarian or autocratic leaders. Such leaders, including US President Donald J. Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Egyptian General-turned-President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Turkey’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who prioritize domestic political and geopolitical gain and economic preservation rather than timely public health policy and simple decency and humanity. Even though senior government officials across the globe have been infected, it’s the hundreds of thousands of victims of the coronavirus and the hundreds of millions whose social and economic lives have been disrupted that pay the price of delayed and inadequate responses. “Sanctions are the number one cause of Iran’s limited access to medicine and other basic resources. These pressures are severely compounded during this global health crisis and are felt acutely in the day-to-day lives of Iranian citizens . . . Just as outbound travel has been suspended, the import of aid coming into Iran is limited, if at all, furthering the sense that even when dealing with a concern that affects the whole world, Iranians are largely on their own,” reflected comparative literature PhD candidate Donna Honarpisheh from self-isolation during a family visit to Shiraz. The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global concern. The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country potentially threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global rather than a national concern. Prioritising politics rather than common sense self-preservation that fails to strike a balance between humanity, global public health, and national security is likely to harden positions rather than create opportunities for conflict resolution. As a result, Iran’s isolation and Gaza’s blockade by Israel and Egypt for the past 13 years are likely to be reflected in longer-term Iranian and Palestinian political wrath and other hostile attitudes towards the outside world. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar – the only countries to have come to Iran’s aid – were among the few in the international community to recognize that how the world handles the crisis has consequences that go far beyond healthcare. That is true even if the UAE and Kuwait acted to ensure that they would not be targets in any future US-Iranian confrontation. Whereas Qatar honoured its relations with Iran since Tehran provides crucial logistical support, enabling Doha to withstand the almost three-year-old UAE-Saudi-led economic and diplomatic boycott of the Gulf state. Adding to the woes of Iran, like other countries with governments that are untransparent or at best economical with the truth, is the fact that the regime’s trust deficit complicates getting public compliance with extraordinary measures and raises the specter of protests at a time of quarantines and social distancing. Egyptian authorities arrested four prominent women in recent days for protesting in demand of the release of prisoners as a healthcare measure. Hundreds of Egyptians reportedly attempted to storm public laboratories to obtain a coronavirus test. The locked-down Philippines capital of Manila is awash with rumours of food shortages and fears of rioting and looting. It’s at best a matter of time before the human carnage hits camps for refugees and displaced persons across the Middle East and in Asia and Africa as well as countries like Venezuela that have failing health systems as a result of mismanagement and corruption. All failures are compounded by sanctions. “Millions of conflict-affected people are living in cramped refugee and displacement sites with desperately poor hygiene and sanitation facilities. There will be carnage when the virus reaches parts of Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela where hospitals have been demolished and health systems have collapsed,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council. Yemen already knows the consequences. It suffered in 2017 a dramatic surge of cholera, a disease that had been virtually eradicated from the planet. The question is not only what happens when disease and death on a large scale or food shortages and/or famine hit the world’s most vulnerable holed up in inhuman conditions with nothing more to lose. It is also whether governments and elites have the foresight and political will to build a new world order that is not only equitable but also creates the political, economic, and social conditions for the management of future pandemics at a potentially lower social and economic cost for all. That may be a tall order in a world dominated by civilizational and nationalist leaders whose primary concern are not ensuring robust structures capable of fighting indiscriminate global threats but short-term political gain, self-aggrandizement, the settling of political scores, and narrow visions of ethnic or religious supremacy. It’s an approach that adds to already mounting threats of increased political instability and violence as well as migration in magnitudes that could dwarf the world’s current problem of coping with large-scale dislocation. (The article was first published on Inside Arabia) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Refugees could become the worst victims of coronavirus pandemic

A Turkish delegation was in Russia on Monday for talks on Syria, following reports that Russian-backed attacks there were forcing tens of thousands more Syrians to flee towards Turkey.

Turkey already hosts about 3.7 million Syrians - the world's biggest refugee population. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday it could not handle a new influx and was urging Russia to stop the strikes in Syria's northwestern Idlib province.

The Turkey-based Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said on Monday 120,000 Syrians were fleeing towards the Turkish border - higher than Erdogan's estimate of 80,000.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-objects-to-malaysias-un-submission-on-south-china-sea-scmp-268661">UN</a>&nbsp;Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate end to the hostilities, which he said had displaced 30,000 people in the last week alone, his spokesman said.

"The Secretary-General reminds all parties of their obligations to protect civilians and ensure freedom of movement," UN&nbsp;spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has vowed to recapture the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-backed-syrian-forces-gain-ground-in-idlib-269853">Idlib region</a>, the last significant area of Syria still under rebel control after 8-1/2 years of civil war.

Russia and Iran have supported Assad's forces during the Syrian conflict while Turkey has backed Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

Russian and Syrian army jets have been targeting civilian convoys trying to flee the Idlib city of Maarat al-Numan, leaving hundreds of families still trapped there, activists and aid groups have said.

"It's a tragic situation for civilians remaining in the city since Russian jets are hitting any convoy that leaves the city, while those who were able to reach areas closer to the border have nowhere to shelter," said Mohamad Rasheed, an activist in the area.

&nbsp;

LIBYA ALSO IN FOCUS

The Syrian army said on Monday it had fought fierce battles in southeastern Idlib and seized several villages after killing large numbers of what it called terrorists.

"People are lying on the ground sleeping in the open with no blankets and under rain and cold," said Feras Saad, who fled the city with his family and found shelter in the border village of Harabosh.

Moscow and Damascus both deny allegations of indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and say they are fighting al Qaeda-inspired Islamist militants.

A Turkish diplomatic source said the delegation in Russia will also discuss Turkey's potential troop deployment and military support to Libya, after Ankara and Tripoli signed a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/erdogan-says-turkey-will-increase-military-support-to-libya-if-necessary-269588">military cooperation</a> accord last month.

Russia has said it is concerned about any such deployment.

Erdogan said on Sunday Turkey could increase military support to Fayez al-Serraj's UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), which has been fighting off an offensive by east Libya forces led by <a href="wionews.com/world/eastern-libyan-force-warns-against-transporting-military-equipment-in-civilian-planes-269619">Khalifa Haftar</a>.

Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have backed Haftar's forces.

Later on Monday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu held a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss developments in Syria and Libya. It did not give further details.

A Turkish delegation was in Russia on Monday for talks on Syria, following reports that Russian-backed attacks there were forcing tens of thousands more Syrians to flee towards Turkey.

A Turkish delegation was in Russia on Monday for talks on Syria, following reports that Russian-backed attacks there were forcing tens of thousands more Syrians to flee towards Turkey. Turkey already hosts about 3.7 million Syrians - the world's biggest refugee population. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday it could not handle a new influx and was urging Russia to stop the strikes in Syria's northwestern Idlib province. The Turkey-based Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said on Monday 120,000 Syrians were fleeing towards the Turkish border - higher than Erdogan's estimate of 80,000. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate end to the hostilities, which he said had displaced 30,000 people in the last week alone, his spokesman said. "The Secretary-General reminds all parties of their obligations to protect civilians and ensure freedom of movement," UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has vowed to recapture the Idlib region, the last significant area of Syria still under rebel control after 8-1/2 years of civil war. Russia and Iran have supported Assad's forces during the Syrian conflict while Turkey has backed Syrian rebels fighting Assad. Russian and Syrian army jets have been targeting civilian convoys trying to flee the Idlib city of Maarat al-Numan, leaving hundreds of families still trapped there, activists and aid groups have said. "It's a tragic situation for civilians remaining in the city since Russian jets are hitting any convoy that leaves the city, while those who were able to reach areas closer to the border have nowhere to shelter," said Mohamad Rasheed, an activist in the area. LIBYA ALSO IN FOCUS The Syrian army said on Monday it had fought fierce battles in southeastern Idlib and seized several villages after killing large numbers of what it called terrorists. "People are lying on the ground sleeping in the open with no blankets and under rain and cold," said Feras Saad, who fled the city with his family and found shelter in the border village of Harabosh. Moscow and Damascus both deny allegations of indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and say they are fighting al Qaeda-inspired Islamist militants. A Turkish diplomatic source said the delegation in Russia will also discuss Turkey's potential troop deployment and military support to Libya, after Ankara and Tripoli signed a military cooperation accord last month. Russia has said it is concerned about any such deployment. Erdogan said on Sunday Turkey could increase military support to Fayez al-Serraj's UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), which has been fighting off an offensive by east Libya forces led by Khalifa Haftar. Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have backed Haftar's forces. Later on Monday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu held a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss developments in Syria and Libya. It did not give further details.

Turkey, Russia talk Syria as thousands flee bombing

Turkey's President Erdogan: We Will Not Take More Refugees #Gravitas #Turkey #Erdogan #WION

Gravitas: Turkey Says No To More Refugees

States&nbsp;have&nbsp;pledged&nbsp;more&nbsp;than&nbsp;$3&nbsp;billion&nbsp;(£2.34&nbsp;billion) to support&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;and about 50,000 resettlement places, the&nbsp;United Nations Refugee Agency said on Wednesday at the end of a ministerial conference.

UN&nbsp;High Commissioner for&nbsp;Refugees&nbsp;Filippo Grandi said that the Global Forum on&nbsp;Refugees&nbsp;had broadened responsibility, sharing for 25.9 million&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;who have fled war and persecution, mainly exiled in poor neighbouring countries.

Grandi told a final news conference that the $3&nbsp;billion&nbsp;was in addition to the World Bank and other&nbsp;pledges. The private sector&nbsp;pledged $250 million, but all the figures were preliminary, Grandi said.

Germany, which has taken in hundreds of thousands of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/40000-refugees-expelled-from-istanbul-262461">Syrian&nbsp;refugees</a>,&nbsp;pledged some 1.7&nbsp;billion&nbsp;euros, Grandi said. The Inter-American Development Bank&nbsp;pledged $1&nbsp;billion&nbsp;to communities hosting&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;in Latin America, while the World Bank announced it was expanding funding for projects supporting&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;by 10 per cent to $2.2&nbsp;billion, Grandi added.

States&nbsp;pledged 50,000 new resettlement and other legal pathways for&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;to remain in host countries, he said.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said in September that it planned to allow only 18,000&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-plans-to-slash-number-of-refugees-for-us-resettlement-252364">resettle</a> in the&nbsp;United&nbsp;States&nbsp;in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee programme.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/few-immigrants-fit-the-legal-definition-of-global-refugees-239846">right to claim&nbsp;asylum</a>, enshrined in international law, remains "under threat", Grandi said, without naming names.

"The reality is there has been no real systematic burden and responsibility-sharing," he said.

"We cannot go into a world in which responsibility-sharing&nbsp;means some&nbsp;states&nbsp;keep all the&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;and some&nbsp;states&nbsp;pay all the money. We cannot do that, that is why we have resettlement, why we have different types of partnerships.

"That is why&nbsp;asylum&nbsp;has to remain a reality in all parts of the world including in the rich countries and even&nbsp;more&nbsp;in rich countries that have so many responsibilities," Grandi said.

States have pledged more than $3 billion (£2.34 billion) to support refugees and about 50,000 resettlement places, the United Nations Refugee Agency said on Wednesday at the end of a ministerial conference.

States have pledged more than $3 billion (£2.34 billion) to support refugees and about 50,000 resettlement places, the United Nations Refugee Agency said on Wednesday at the end of a ministerial conference. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said that the Global Forum on Refugees had broadened responsibility, sharing for 25.9 million refugees who have fled war and persecution, mainly exiled in poor neighbouring countries. Grandi told a final news conference that the $3 billion was in addition to the World Bank and other pledges. The private sector pledged $250 million, but all the figures were preliminary, Grandi said. Germany, which has taken in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, pledged some 1.7 billion euros, Grandi said. The Inter-American Development Bank pledged $1 billion to communities hosting refugees in Latin America, while the World Bank announced it was expanding funding for projects supporting refugees by 10 per cent to $2.2 billion, Grandi added. States pledged 50,000 new resettlement and other legal pathways for refugees to remain in host countries, he said. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said in September that it planned 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 programme. The right to claim asylum, enshrined in international law, remains "under threat", Grandi said, without naming names. "The reality is there has been no real systematic burden and responsibility-sharing," he said. "We cannot go into a world in which responsibility-sharing means some states keep all the refugees and some states pay all the money. We cannot do that, that is why we have resettlement, why we have different types of partnerships. "That is why asylum has to remain a reality in all parts of the world including in the rich countries and even more in rich countries that have so many responsibilities," Grandi said.

United Nations: States pledge more than $3 billion for refugees, asylum rights 'under threat'

A delegation of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/why-aung-san-suu-kyi-is-in-the-hague-defending-myanmar-against-allegations-of-genocide-267828">Myanmar</a> officials visited the sprawling Bangladeshi refugee camps on Wednesday (December 18), where they spoke to several dozen Rohingya refugees in an effort to kickstart a process to repatriate them.

Myanmar says it has been ready to accept back the refugees since January last year and has built camps near the border to receive them.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/myanmar-seizes-boat-carrying-173-rohingya-muslims-military-spokesman-268720">Rohingya</a> leaders say they want Myanmar to recognise them as an ethnic group with the right to Myanmar citizenship before they return. Rohingya representatives said no progress had been made at Wednesday's talks.

Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya who remain inside Myanmar are mostly denied citizenship and live in conditions Amnesty International has likened to apartheid, confined to camps and villages and unable to travel freely.

Myanmar does not consider the Rohingya a native ethnic group. Many in the Buddhist-majority country call the Rohingya "<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-has-softened-stance-following-icj-hearing-bangladesh-foreign-minister-268492">Bengalis</a>", suggesting they belong in Bangladesh.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-aung-san-suu-kyi-warns-genocide-case-could-reignite-rohingya-crisis-268065">Gambia</a> accused Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention over a military campaign that drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Bangladesh. It has asked the International Court of Justice to order "provisional measures" to prevent more harm.

A delegation of Myanmar officials visited the sprawling Bangladeshi refugee camps on Wednesday (December 18), where they spoke to several dozen Rohingya refugees in an effort to kickstart a process to repatriate them.

A delegation of Myanmar officials visited the sprawling Bangladeshi refugee camps on Wednesday (December 18), where they spoke to several dozen Rohingya refugees in an effort to kickstart a process to repatriate them. Myanmar says it has been ready to accept back the refugees since January last year and has built camps near the border to receive them. Rohingya leaders say they want Myanmar to recognise them as an ethnic group with the right to Myanmar citizenship before they return. Rohingya representatives said no progress had been made at Wednesday's talks. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya who remain inside Myanmar are mostly denied citizenship and live in conditions Amnesty International has likened to apartheid, confined to camps and villages and unable to travel freely. Myanmar does not consider the Rohingya a native ethnic group. Many in the Buddhist-majority country call the Rohingya "Bengalis", suggesting they belong in Bangladesh. Gambia accused Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention over a military campaign that drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Bangladesh. It has asked the International Court of Justice to order "provisional measures" to prevent more harm.

'We are ready to go back': Rohingya refugees meet with Myanmar delegates

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill.

Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant?

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance.

The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again.

India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities.

While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home.

The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant.&nbsp;

In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. &nbsp;

The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns.

Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India.

While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value.

With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how.

The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion.&nbsp;

Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so.&nbsp;

Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit.

Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'.

However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application

The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally.

However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others.

The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'.

In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney &amp; Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government.

However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. 
 
The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. 
 
In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” 
 
Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. 
 
Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. 
 
Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. 
 
In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention.

Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts.

The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries.

As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition.

Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines.

Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'.

Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. 
&nbsp;

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law.

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill. Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance. The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again. India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities. While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home. The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant. In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns. Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India. While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value. With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how. The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion. Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so. Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit. Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'. However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally. However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others. The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'. In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government. However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention. Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts. The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries. As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition. Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines. Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'. Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Here's why Supreme Court is not likely to quash Citizenship Amendment Act

The United States on Tuesday blacklisted four Myanmar military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, in the toughest action taken yet by Washington for alleged human rights abuses against the Rohingya and other minorities.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmars-suu-kyi-told-to-stop-the-genocide-in-united-nations-court-over-rohingya-crisis-267445">The sanctions</a> targeted the commander-in-chief of the Burmese military, Min Aung Hlaing, on the same day that Myanmar's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, attended the first day of hearings in a genocide case against Myanmar at the UN's highest court.

A 2017 military crackdown in Myanmar drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. United Nations investigators have said Myanmar's operation included mass killings, gang rapes and widespread arson and was executed with "genocidal intent."

The military in Myanmar has denied accusations of widespread abuses and said its actions were part of a fight against terrorism.

The US Treasury Department said in a statement on Tuesday Burmese military forces had committed "serious human rights abuse" against ethnic minority groups in Myanmar and that Min Aung Hlaing's forces were responsible for the 2017 military crackdown.

"During this time, members of ethnic minority groups were killed or injured by gunshot, often while fleeing, or by soldiers using large-bladed weapons; others were burned to death in their own houses," the statement said.

Washington's sanctions also targeted Min Aung Hlaing's deputy, Soe Win, and two brigadier generals, Than Oo and Aung Aung, freezing any US&nbsp;assets they have and prohibiting Americans from doing business with them.

The four generals, who were previously barred from entering the United States in July, are not known to have assets in the United States.

The US&nbsp;action falls short of reimposing economic sanctions on Myanmar lifted after a transition from full military rule that began in 2011. It does not target military-owned companies that dominate some sectors of Myanmar's economy.

Some analysts and diplomats have tipped Min Aung Hlaing as a potential presidential candidate in the next election in 2020, when Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy is likely to face opposition from nationalists aligned with the military.

His political ambitions could be damaged by the sanctions, as well as an earlier US&nbsp;travel ban and Facebook's decision in August 2018 to remove the army chief's page that had been his main channel of communication with the public.

The sanctions Tuesday were among a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/as-suu-kyi-looks-on-gambia-asks-un-judges-to-stop-genocide-in-myanmar-267424">round of targets</a> announced on International Human Rights Day.

The United States on Tuesday blacklisted four Myanmar military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, in the toughest action taken yet by Washington for alleged human rights abuses against the Rohingya and other minorities.

The United States on Tuesday blacklisted four Myanmar military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, in the toughest action taken yet by Washington for alleged human rights abuses against the Rohingya and other minorities. The sanctions targeted the commander-in-chief of the Burmese military, Min Aung Hlaing, on the same day that Myanmar's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, attended the first day of hearings in a genocide case against Myanmar at the UN's highest court. A 2017 military crackdown in Myanmar drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. United Nations investigators have said Myanmar's operation included mass killings, gang rapes and widespread arson and was executed with "genocidal intent." The military in Myanmar has denied accusations of widespread abuses and said its actions were part of a fight against terrorism. The US Treasury Department said in a statement on Tuesday Burmese military forces had committed "serious human rights abuse" against ethnic minority groups in Myanmar and that Min Aung Hlaing's forces were responsible for the 2017 military crackdown. "During this time, members of ethnic minority groups were killed or injured by gunshot, often while fleeing, or by soldiers using large-bladed weapons; others were burned to death in their own houses," the statement said. Washington's sanctions also targeted Min Aung Hlaing's deputy, Soe Win, and two brigadier generals, Than Oo and Aung Aung, freezing any US assets they have and prohibiting Americans from doing business with them. The four generals, who were previously barred from entering the United States in July, are not known to have assets in the United States. The US action falls short of reimposing economic sanctions on Myanmar lifted after a transition from full military rule that began in 2011. It does not target military-owned companies that dominate some sectors of Myanmar's economy. Some analysts and diplomats have tipped Min Aung Hlaing as a potential presidential candidate in the next election in 2020, when Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy is likely to face opposition from nationalists aligned with the military. His political ambitions could be damaged by the sanctions, as well as an earlier US travel ban and Facebook's decision in August 2018 to remove the army chief's page that had been his main channel of communication with the public. The sanctions Tuesday were among a round of targets announced on International Human Rights Day.

US blacklists head of Myanmar military for alleged rights abuses against Rohingya

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-tourists-found-alive-two-weeks-after-going-missing-265885">Australia</a> on Wednesday removed the right of doctors to order sick asylum seekers be evacuated from two remote Pacific detention centres for medical treatment, a repeal that opponents said risks the lives of refugees.

Under Australia's controversial immigration policy, asylum seekers intercepted at sea are sent to camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. They can never settle in Australia, even if they are found to be refugees.

In February, independent lawmakers and the opposition joined forces to give doctors the right to order sick asylum seekers be sent to Australia if they required medical care.

After securing re-election in May, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government would seek to repeal the legislation, though he needed the support of independent lawmakers as the coalition does not enjoy a majority in Australia's upper house Senate.

After weeks of negotiations, the repeal legislation passed Australia's Senate by 37 votes to 35.

"You can take advice from doctors, but doctors aren't elected. They aren't accountable to the public," independent lawmaker Jacqui Lambie, who cast the decisive vote, told the Senate.

Around 500 people remain on the two island centres, many suffering mental health issues after more than six years in detention, aid organisations say.

The United Nations has repeatedly criticised Australia's remote detention centres, insisting they lack adequate medical and mental health care.

"To now deny medical professionals from taking decisions in patients’ best interests,&nbsp;and to effectively hand that power back to unqualified officials... puts those most sick and vulnerable at risk," Paul McPhun, Executive Director of Médecins Sans Frontières Australia said in a statement.

Morrison rejected those allegations, insisting Canberra has provided significant medical aid, while those unable to get necessary treatment can be sent to Australia if the minister for home affairs approves it.

As a result, Morrison said the medical evacuation legislation is unnecessary and undermines Canberra's border policy, designed to discourage asylum seekers from undertaking dangerous sea voyages to Australia.

In 2016, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amid-china-spy-concerns-australia-launches-anti-espionage-task-force-265625">Australia agreed a deal with former US&nbsp;President Barack Obama</a> to offer refuge to up to 1,250 asylum seekers. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said it would only honour that deal to maintain a strong relationship with Australia, and then only on condition that refugees satisfied strict checks.

Around 650 refugees have been resettled in the United States, with a further 250 in PNG and Nauru approved to go at a future date, Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.

Australia has rejected offers from neighbouring New Zealand to take a further 150 asylum seekers, fearing refugees will use it as a 'backdoor entry' into Australia.

Media reported Lambie has sought a commitment that Canberra will now accept Wellington's offer. Morrison and Lambie declined to comment.

Australia on Wednesday removed the right of doctors to order sick asylum seekers be evacuated from two remote Pacific detention centres for medical treatment, a repeal that opponents said risks the lives of refugees.

Australia on Wednesday removed the right of doctors to order sick asylum seekers be evacuated from two remote Pacific detention centres for medical treatment, a repeal that opponents said risks the lives of refugees. Under Australia's controversial immigration policy, asylum seekers intercepted at sea are sent to camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. They can never settle in Australia, even if they are found to be refugees. In February, independent lawmakers and the opposition joined forces to give doctors the right to order sick asylum seekers be sent to Australia if they required medical care. After securing re-election in May, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government would seek to repeal the legislation, though he needed the support of independent lawmakers as the coalition does not enjoy a majority in Australia's upper house Senate. After weeks of negotiations, the repeal legislation passed Australia's Senate by 37 votes to 35. "You can take advice from doctors, but doctors aren't elected. They aren't accountable to the public," independent lawmaker Jacqui Lambie, who cast the decisive vote, told the Senate. Around 500 people remain on the two island centres, many suffering mental health issues after more than six years in detention, aid organisations say. The United Nations has repeatedly criticised Australia's remote detention centres, insisting they lack adequate medical and mental health care. "To now deny medical professionals from taking decisions in patients’ best interests, and to effectively hand that power back to unqualified officials... puts those most sick and vulnerable at risk," Paul McPhun, Executive Director of Médecins Sans Frontières Australia said in a statement. Morrison rejected those allegations, insisting Canberra has provided significant medical aid, while those unable to get necessary treatment can be sent to Australia if the minister for home affairs approves it. As a result, Morrison said the medical evacuation legislation is unnecessary and undermines Canberra's border policy, designed to discourage asylum seekers from undertaking dangerous sea voyages to Australia. In 2016, Australia agreed a deal with former US President Barack Obama to offer refuge to up to 1,250 asylum seekers. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said it would only honour that deal to maintain a strong relationship with Australia, and then only on condition that refugees satisfied strict checks. Around 650 refugees have been resettled in the United States, with a further 250 in PNG and Nauru approved to go at a future date, Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. Australia has rejected offers from neighbouring New Zealand to take a further 150 asylum seekers, fearing refugees will use it as a 'backdoor entry' into Australia. Media reported Lambie has sought a commitment that Canberra will now accept Wellington's offer. Morrison and Lambie declined to comment.

Australia restricts medical evacuations of refugees from Pacific camps

Bangladesh is blocking hundreds of thousands of Rohingya children from accessing meaningful education, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday, urging authorities to lift restrictions on schooling in refugee camps.

In a report called 'Are we not human?', Human Rights Watch accused Bangladesh of violating the rights of 400,000 school-age children who have fled Myanmar and are currently living in the Cox's Bazaar refugee camps.

"Depriving an entire generation of children of education is in no one’s interest," Bill Van Esveld, associate childrens' rights director at Human Rights Watch told Reuters. "The international community needs to act and demand that Bangladesh and Myanmar change course."

More than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar to neighbouring Bangladesh since a 2017 crackdown by Myanmar's military, which followed attacks by Rohingya insurgents.

The Human Rights Watch report said Bangladesh had banned Rohingya refugees from enrolling in schools outside the camps or taking national exams and also barred UN&nbsp;agencies and foreign aid groups from giving formal accredited education.

It accused Myanmar of not agreeing to recognise the use of its school curriculum in the camps.

Bangladesh’s Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission Chief Mahbub Alam Talukder said it was untrue that children in the camps were not being educated and that there were 4,000 learning centres in the camps.

"Rohingya will have to go back to Myanmar," he told Reuters. "They are not our citizens and we can’t allow them to use our national curriculum."

The Myanmar government did not respond immediately to a Reuters request for comment.

Bangladesh is blocking hundreds of thousands of Rohingya children from accessing meaningful education, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday, urging authorities to lift restrictions on schooling in refugee camps.

Bangladesh is blocking hundreds of thousands of Rohingya children from accessing meaningful education, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday, urging authorities to lift restrictions on schooling in refugee camps. In a report called 'Are we not human?', Human Rights Watch accused Bangladesh of violating the rights of 400,000 school-age children who have fled Myanmar and are currently living in the Cox's Bazaar refugee camps. "Depriving an entire generation of children of education is in no one’s interest," Bill Van Esveld, associate childrens' rights director at Human Rights Watch told Reuters. "The international community needs to act and demand that Bangladesh and Myanmar change course." More than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar to neighbouring Bangladesh since a 2017 crackdown by Myanmar's military, which followed attacks by Rohingya insurgents. The Human Rights Watch report said Bangladesh had banned Rohingya refugees from enrolling in schools outside the camps or taking national exams and also barred UN agencies and foreign aid groups from giving formal accredited education. It accused Myanmar of not agreeing to recognise the use of its school curriculum in the camps. Bangladesh’s Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission Chief Mahbub Alam Talukder said it was untrue that children in the camps were not being educated and that there were 4,000 learning centres in the camps. "Rohingya will have to go back to Myanmar," he told Reuters. "They are not our citizens and we can’t allow them to use our national curriculum." The Myanmar government did not respond immediately to a Reuters request for comment.

Rohingya child refugees in Bangladesh being denied education: Human Rights Watch

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

refugees

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