For more articles and information, click the following links.
To read the entire article, click the name of the author.
|
The articles all address the same topic, refugees. Each provide information that will open one's eyes to the true nature of this global refugee crisis. The first article describes policies are put into place by various countries. The next set of articles focus more on problems refugees face, like lack of resources and basic needs not being met. The third set of articles detail US's recent policy put into place by president Trump. The last article illustrates what happens when a refugee isn't granted asylum. If read in order, all articles flow with one another.
|
Syrian refugee crisis: How different countries have respondedJon Stone | Thursday 1 September 2016 21:26 BST
Greece Europe’s main transit destination for refugees, Greece has seen hundreds of thousands of migrants pass through its border – though very few actually apply for asylum in the country, instead continuing onto other countries like Germany. Turkey A long land border with northern Syria, relative stability, and a gateway to Europe has made Turkey the biggest host of refugees from the Syrian conflict. Between two and three million displaced Syrians live within its borders, the majority living in camps. Germany An estimated 300,000 refugees are in Germany, following’s Angela Merkel’s open-door policy. Protests both in support of refugees and against them have taken place in the country. Sweden Sweden has been a major destination for Syrian refugees following a policy of granting all asylum seekers permanent residency, as well as residency for their families. More than 38,000 people applied for asylum in 2015, an increase from previous years. Canada Canada met its goal of resettling 25,000 refugees in February this year; it has now accepted upwards of 31,000 – more than the UK had pledged to take by 2020. France President Francois Hollande has committed France to taking 30,000 refugees over two years. Lebanon Slightly smaller than Yorkshire, tiny Lebanon has hosted a million Syrian refugees, thanks to its proximity to Damascus and other built-up areas in the west of Syria. |
Jordan
Syria’s neighbor to its south west has around a million refugees, many living in the local community rather than organized refugee camps. Iraq Despite the conflict in Iraq, about a quarter of a million Syrians have fled there. Many, especially enthic Kurds, have gone on to Iraqi Kurdistan, where local security forces have kept the conflict at bay. Armenia More than 10,000 ethnic minority Armenian Syrians have fled through Turkey to Armenia, where many have relatives. Israel Despite its proximity and high level of economic development, Israel has refused to take any Syrian refugees. “We will not allow Israel to be submerged by a wave of illegal migrants and terrorist activists,” Benjamin Netanyahu has said. Venezuela Despite food shortages and an economic crisis President Nicolás Maduro announced that Venezuela will accept 20,000 Syrians. Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia has reportedly issued residency permits for 100,000 Syrians though it has not formally accepted anyone actually classed as a refugee. United States The US state department has said it will accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016. Some state governors, however, have said they will not allow any Syrians to be placed there. |
World faces worst humanitarian crisis since 1945, says UN official![]() Associated Press | Friday 10 March 2017 21.58 EST
O’Brien said the largest humanitarian crisis was in Yemen where two-thirds of the population — 18.8 million people — need aid and more than seven million people are hungry and did not know where their next meal would come from. “That is three million people more than in January,” he said. O’Brien said more than 7.5 million people need aid, up by 1.4 million from last year, and about 3.4 million South Sudanese are displaced by fighting including almost 200,000 who have fled the country since January. “More than one million children are estimated to be acutely malnourished across the country, including 270,000 children who face the imminent risk of death should they not be reached in time with assistance,” he said. “Meanwhile, the cholera outbreak that began in June 2016 has spread to more locations.” |
Thousands of refugees fleeing conflict destitute in UK, says Red CrossDiane Taylor | Thursday 2 February 2017 13.39 EST
Thousands of refugees and asylum seekers who have fled conflict zones such as Syria, Eritrea and Sudan are being left destitute in Britain, according to a report from the Red Cross. The figure has increased by 10% in the last year. The charity, the largest provider of services to asylum seekers and refugees in the UK, with centres in more than 50 towns and cities, expressed concern about the increase in the numbers of vulnerable and destitute people who have fled war and conflict being helped by its staff and volunteers in 2016. Almost 15,000 (14,909) people without adequate access to food, housing or healthcare last year received food parcels, clothing and small amounts of cash, an increase of nearly 10% on the 13,660 in 2015. In 2014 just 11,268 people were supported. The youngest recipient of support was a child of one, the oldest was 92. There are many more destitute asylum seekers and refugees trying to survive across the UK than those supported by the Red Cross, but it is hard to get precise figures as many are living “underground” and do not appear in Home Office records. |
Why Trump’s refugee order is unconstitutional![]() Ilya Somin | February 5
A federal court recently enjoined Donald Trump’s executive order barring refugees and migrants from seven Muslim-majority nations. One of the main issues at stake in the growing legal battle over the order is whether the order qualifies as unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims. Despite a thin veneer of religious neutrality, the order does in fact target Muslims. And that should indeed lead courts to strike it down. On its face, the order does not discriminate on the basis of religion. The text does not even mention Muslims or any other religious group by name. But the Supreme Court has long recognized that a seemingly neutral regulation qualifies as unconstitutional discrimination if the true purpose behind it is in fact to target a specific racial, ethnic, or religious group. It applied that principle to racial discrimination as far back as 1886, and more recent decisions apply it to discrimination on the basis of religion, as well. In a 1993 case, the Supreme Court struck down a seemingly neutral law banning cruelty to animals because evidence showed it to have been motivated by hostility to the Santeria religion. |
Trump’s Revised Travel Ban Is Denounced by 134 Foreign Policy ExpertsLara Jakes | March 11, 2017
More than 130 members of America’s foreign policy establishment denounced President Trump’s revised travel ban on Friday as just as damaging to the United States’ interests and reputation as his original order that halted refugees and froze travelers from predominantly Muslim countries. In a letter to Mr. Trump, the former government officials and experts said even the scaled-back order will “weaken U.S. security and undermine U.S. global leadership.” And they said it continues to signal to Muslim allies that — as the Islamic State and other extremist propaganda profess — the United States is an enemy of Islam. |
What happens to failed asylum seekers?Camila Ruz BBC News Magazine
Asylum Some of those who manage to get through will remain hidden and stay as illegal workers. But many of the people waiting in Calais will be expecting to be found and then seek refugee status. Once someone is in the UK, even if they entered it illegally, they have the right to claim asylum. There were 25,020 asylum applications in the UK in the 12 months up to March. Police who find asylum seekers will usually hand them over to immigration officials to submit their claim. Asylum seekers are entitled to stay in the UK while they wait for a decision. But what happens if they have passed through a safe country on their way to the UK? There is a general principle observed by many countries that asylum seekers who have passed through a safe third country where they could have claimed asylum can be sent back there in order to make their claim. All of those waiting in Calais to cross the Channel fit into this category. They are in a safe country but few will have reached France without having crossed another EU border beforehand. The EU has a specific rule about this to try to work out which country is responsible for handling an asylum claim. Dublin Regulation
The Dublin Regulation allows some asylum seekers to be sent to other EU nations, including France. It sets out criteria for identifying which country should look at a claim. Usually, the first EU country someone arrives in is responsible for processing their application. This is meant to stop "asylum shopping", where one person submits multiple asylum applications in different countries. The Eurodac system can help identify which country was the entry point, explains Alexander Betts, director of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. This is a database of fingerprints of asylum seekers across the EU. A hit on the system would help prove that an asylum seeker had already been registered in a different EU country and could be sent back there. The Home Office says that it takes "full advantage" of this rule to send people back to European nations such as France. But the UK only carried out 252 Dublin transfers in 2014, compared with 827 in 2013. And it's complicated because the vast majority of those in France will have passed through at least one other safe country to get there - perhaps Italy or Spain. Not everyone will have registered with border officials and without documentation it can be hard to prove which countries someone has travelled through. "It's legally and diplomatically complicated," explains Betts, to try moving someone to a place that is not their country of origin. Some governments have also stopped sending people back to the two of the most likely entry countries for asylum seekers - Greece and Italy, because they are already inundated with asylum applications. In Greece there has been criticism over the treatment of asylum seekers. "One of the biggest challenges with the Dublin system is that it creates a fundamental inequality, by placing a disproportionate responsibility on frontline states like Greece and Italy," explains Betts. |
Backlog
There were more than 25,000 asylum applications in the UK in the 12 months up to March. Most applications are typically rejected and in 2014, more than 60% of initial decisions on asylum applications were refusals. But in the same year, only 6,788 asylum seekers and their dependents were removed or departed voluntarily from the UK. Many of last year's removed people could have had their asylum applications refused some time ago. The Home Office will not say what the average time is between asylum refusal and removal from the UK, saying that this does not form part of their routinely published statistics. It can be hard to keep track of the number of people who are waiting to be removed. Appeals Appeals make the average removal delay even harder to measure. "I can't imagine anybody who would apply and then not appeal," says Adrian Berry, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA). Most asylum seekers have a right of appeal if their claim is refused. Many will remain in the UK while they wait for this, although the government has proposed a "deport first, appeal later" policy. The aim is for all appeals to be heard within two months of the initial decision but there is a significant backlog of cases. At the end of March, 21,651 of the applications for asylum in the UK received since April 2006 were still awaiting an initial decision, appeal or further review. Legal challenges delay removals but Berry says that it's a myth that asylum seekers can endlessly appeal over their asylum claim. Permission can be granted to go beyond the tribunal that hears the first appeal but few people get that, he explains, as there needs to have been an error of law. The latest figures say that 2,242 appeals have been determined in the UK so far this year, with 66% dismissed. Undocumented The biggest cause of delay in removals of failed asylum seekers is bureaucratic, says Jerome Phelps, director of pressure group Detention Action. Many asylum seekers will have fled their countries without a valid travel document. Others may have destroyed their passport before entering the UK and it can be difficult to prove their nationality. Phelps argues that some people in this situation are "effectively unreturnable". "The UK is unique in the EU for having no time limit on detention," he explains, adding that some people in detention are waiting for an emergency travel document that is unlikely ever to come. Some countries refuse or delay issuing a travel document to returnees who do not have a valid passport. Other nations do not allow the forced return of individuals, or demand proofs of nationality that are almost impossible to meet. How many people are stuck because of problems with their documents is not clear. The Home Office says that this does not form part of their routinely published statistics. "The UK can want to kick people out and it can be lawfully authorised to do that but it requires the other country to actually want to take people back," says Brooks. The UK and the EU have readmission agreements with certain countries such as Algeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These will all affect when and how easy it is to send people back. |