Tara Answers: All Your Questions on the Refugee Crisis (part 1 of 3)

One of my favourite things about Facebook is how easy it makes interesting discussions with people who are far away and with unique perspectives.  Unfortunately, one of the most annoying things about Facebook is that I’m often asked the same 15 questions 70x over in a matter of days. 

Instead of trying to answer this repeatedly, I’m going to take a few moments to answer the refugee questions that pop up the most.

1.  Those fleeing Syria are "real" refugees. As are the ones fleeing Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, the DRC... 

Refugees become refugees the moment they leave their home country and have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their social group (that includes race, religion, nationality, as well as other "particular social group[s] or political opinion").

They do not lose their status until one of three things happen: (1) they no longer have a well-founded fear of persecution; (2) they return to their country of origin; or (3) they become able and willing to avail themselves of their country’s protection (that means diplomatic protection when living abroad).

Syria: war-torn country where any social-identity is likely to be a reason for targeting. Seriously. Race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and political affiliation are all reasons for targeting.  And all seem to meet the standard of protected classes for the purpose of refugee law.

Afghanistan is the same. Somalia, the same. Libya, South Sudan, Sudan, CAR, are all in armed conflicts that involve identity issues.  Cameroon, Chad and Nigeria all have problems with Boko Haram, the Islamist extremist group that was responsible for the infamous kidnapping of hundreds of schoolgirls last year. Eritrea is a brutal regime sometimes referred to as the “North Korea of the Red Sea.”

These refugees are real refugees.  They aren’t seeking economic protection – they are seeking an opportunity to live without a well-founded fear of persecution.

2.  No, moving around within Europe does not alter a refugee’s status or protection.

For some reason, a twitter troll last week decided to “mansplain” refugee protection to me, “informing” me that once a refugee enters into Europe they are no longer a refugee and become a migrant. 

And like most men who mansplain, he was wrong and both unable to accept that and unwilling to listen to anyone with a more informed opinion.

Go back up to question 1.  See how refugees lose their status?  Notice that nothing in there includes “moving to another third state?”  That’s because his “explanation” of the difference between a refugee and a migrant is not a real thing.

Once a refugee leaves their home, they remain a refugee, no matter how many countries they go through.

They also aren’t required register as a refugee in the first country they come to. (I’ll address the effect of the Dublin regulations on this below.)  A state which wasn’t the first state in which a refugee comes to may send the refugee back to the first state if (1) the first state is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and (2) the refugee won’t face persecution or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the first state.  But, that’s an option on the state, not an obligation on the refugee.

In practice, this means that most EU states cannot (or at least should not) return refugees to Greece because the overcrowded conditions and the delays in receiving protection likely amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  The refugees who break free probably and run on foot need to be processed elsewhere.

That’s why I insist that this is not a migrant crisis, it is a refugee crisis.

3.  No, not anyone can show up and say “I’m a refugee; let me in!”

There’s nothing more frustrating to me than to listen to politicians say “they’re just letting anyone in!” or “we know nothing about these refugees!”

It shows absolutely no knowledge of the process.  It’s also extremely disrespectful to the people who work hard at “refugee status determination,” the process used to ensure that only refugees get refugee protection and the attendant benefits.

There’s a process for determining who is and who is not a refugee. There’s a registration process, which includes fingerprinting, but there’s also other documentation process. For refugees trying to get resettled, there is often an additional process to check their stories.  If your story checks out, you get your status affirmed. If it doesn’t, you’re rejected.

Rejected applicants can be returned to their country of origin.

During periods like this, all Syrians are assumed prima facie to be entitled to refugee status because of the circumstances going on there.  But, not everyone who shows up and says “I’m Syrian” will be accepted as a refugee if there’s a reason to doubt they are, actually, Syrian. 

For example, I don’t speak Arabic and I can only label about 5 cities on a Syrian map.  No matter how often I say I’m Syrian, no one is going to grant me refugee status as a Syrian. 

While my non-Syrianness is rather apparent, those who specialize in this process are good at sorting out people who aren’t as obviously non-Syrian as I am.

My friends who work on refugee status determination are some of the most compassionate and passionate people I know, but they are also some of the toughest on people trying to claim protection they aren’t supposed to have.

Refugee workers know that resources are sparse, and they want to make sure that the resources we do dedicate to refugee protection and resettlement actually go towards those individuals. Not everyone who shows up gets refugee protection; the people who get it are those who actually need it.

4.  Members of ISIS may not be entitled to refugee protection.

Just as the definition of who is a refugee is rather specific, so is the definition of who is not.  It’s not just people, like me, who do not meet the refugee definition, but according to the Convention people who otherwise meet the definition of a refugee can be excluded from protection because of past crimes. In particular, war criminals and people who commit crimes against humanity and genocide are all out.  As are others who have committed “a serious non-political crime” before seeking refuge.  That might not cover every member of ISIS – simply participating in a conflict does not make someone a war criminal – but many members of ISIS will be excluded from refugee protection.

5.  Refugee status determination does not “afford” refugee protection; it affirms it.

Refugees become refugees because they meet the definition of a refugee.  Their status is affirmed when they go through the refugee status determination process.  (See para 28 here.) But they aren’t “illegal migrants” before a status determination process; they are still refugees. 

Sometimes people (including the UNHCR, the agency for refugees) use the word “asylum seeker” for someone whose status has not yet been determined, to recognize that not everyone who applies for refugee status is actually entitled to the protection.

6.  No, there is no “numerical limit” by which EU states can justify turning people away.

Yes, there are a lot of refugees. No, that’s not a reason to stop taking them.  States don’t agree to a certain number of refugees, other than through “resettlement” processes, meaning an agreement to take refugees who have already fled to a state like Turkey and resettle them in a state they haven’t reached, like the US or UK.

But when it comes to refugees who actually show up on your doorstep?  There’s no limit. States that are party to the 1951 Convention are required to let the refugees in.

But what if they stop in Turkey first, you ask?  Can Europe stop them from coming? 

First, Turkish law does not extend refugee protection to non-Europeans, so Syrians fleeing don’t get the full legal protection they should in Turkey.

Second, there’s no obligation on the refugee to seek protection in the first country. It’s assumed they will, but they don’t lose their protection if they fail to do that.

But what about the Dublin Regulation?

That’s an internal EU agreement, and relates to how states within the EU are supposed to process refugees.  It’s not about whether someone is a refugee.

So, yes, the EU has tried to force refugees to file for refugee status in their first EU country, but the Dublin Regulations do not fully absolve EU states from their obligations. The Dublin regulation does not require that refugees seek asylum in the first country of entrance but in the first country where they are processed (i.e., fingerprinted). 

EU states are also prohibited from returning a refugee to a state where they face cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  This means, right now, EU states probably can’t legally force refugees back to places like Greece or Hungary. They need to deal with the refugee situation as it exists.

7.  Whose fault is all this?

Well, let’s start with Assad for plunging his country into violence. Then add ISIS into it.  Then add the rest of the world. This crisis is man-made and a significant amount of responsibility extends to states that have until now refused to assist in refugee resettlement.  I’ll explain that more in my next post, but the reality is that if states like the UK, US, and Australia had previously stepped up to address the growing refugee situation in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

The only people who aren’t at fault for the crisis: the refugees. They aren’t causing problems; they are experiencing problems and fleeing from them.