Search

Unaccompanied migrant children seeking asylum status in the United States are often forced to undergo dental radiographs, or x-rays, to verify that they are younger than 18 years. The application of third molar dental radiographs is methodologically flawed and should not be employed as a determinant of chronological age. Furthermore, the use of such tests without obtaining informed consent from either the youth or an objective advocate is unethical. Finally, the legal and health consequences of these inappropriately applied tests are severe and jeopardize the safety and security of these vulnerable minors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines municipal responses to restrictive national policies by focussing on welfare provision for non-removed rejected asylum seekers. Using an analytical framework of multi-level governance, we investigate processes of conflict and cooperation and the demarcation of responsibilities between government tiers at the intersection of migration and welfare policy. In an in-depth analysis of the cases of Amsterdam, Vienna and Stockholm, we argue that in order to explain the divergences of public welfare provisions for non-removed rejected asylum seekers, it is necessary to look into their respective legal-institutional framework and formal competences, but also beyond, meaning into the relations of those municipalities with civil society actors and other local governments. We find that, on the one hand, the relationship between local NGOs and the municipality has an influence on the scope of services provided and that, on the other hand, alliance-building between municipalities is crucial for strengthening a political standing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the recent "migration crisis" has been constructed as a security threat to the European Union, which conceals both the multiple causes of forced migrations, and the inability of the Union to respond to the massive influx of people in need of protection. Serbia had taken up a "refugee‐friendly" policy, which implied a humanitarian approach. However, due to a change of political discourse in connection with the EU accession, a shift towards the security position occurred. This article sheds light on the actual status of migrants and asylum seekers in Serbia, as well as the state response to the growing challenges in the area of acceptance and protection, following the official closure of the Balkan route. In the conclusion, the authors tentatively plead for return to a balanced humanitarian approach, since there is clear evidence that mixed migration flows will resume in the times to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Europe faces the challenge of enormous recent asylum seeker inflows, and the allocation of these immigrants across European countries remains severely skewed, with some countries having a much larger per capita share of asylum applicants than others. Consequently, there is a debate at the EU level on how to allocate asylum seekers in order to tackle this imbalance. The present study focuses on preferences of European citizens towards the supranational policy issue of achieving a more equalized distribution of asylum seekers. Several theoretical arguments point towards asylum seeker intake, general immigrants' legal status, prior immigration stocks, and economic circumstances as explanatory mechanisms at the macro level. We test these propositions using Eurobarometer data from 2015. The results show that a high level of asylum seeker intake and larger immigrant stocks in 2010 are associated with a greater willingness to redistribute asylum seekers. Apart from this, integration policies also play a role: the more inclusive a country's political stance towards Third-Country Nationals, the higher the public support for a better allocation of asylum seekers. These results also emerge when excluding the top five asylum seeking destinations. At the individual level, views of the EU as a competent political actor and general immigration attitudes are substantially related to the support for redistribution efforts. These individual-level patterns occur both in countries with many and in countries with few asylum seekers, indicating that respondents largely take a broad European view on this topic, rather than a national one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2015, the movement of asylum seekers to the European Union (EU) increased dramatically and led to the factual invalidation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). From the beginning, the European Commission's objective was to create a fair system guaranteeing a European-wide protection status in line with the standards contained in the 1951 Refugee Convention. In order to understand why this system failed, it is important to look closely at the applicable laws. Which regulations were based on the Amsterdam and Lisbon treaty mandates? What were the key disputes and which normative solution was pushed through? Scholarly attention so far has focused on either external aspects of border policy or institutional and policy issues within the EU. By contrast, this article argues that the central gaps in the system present a multifaceted set of problems with three main weaknesses: the neglected geographic asymmetry enshrined in the European asylum system; a reliance on national standards that runs through all the legislative processes; and the over-emphasis of asylum rights in contrast to an under-regulation of access to asylum. This combination of problems helps to explain the rise of a serious protection crisis in Europe following the influx in 2015, a crisis that remains largely unresolved. These inherent weaknesses are analysed through an examination of key disputes in the legislative process establishing the CEAS. The article traces the different positions of the European institutions in the legislation process and assesses the shortcomings of the emergent system in two periods: during the establishment of this system from 1999 to 2005, and the reform period from 2008 to 2013. The article concludes with reflections on the current reform phase. The findings point to ineffective laws, unresolved normative disputes, and the need for further reforms to achieve a harmonized CEAS in line with treaty mandates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The officers of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) play pivotal roles at various stages in Canada's refugee system, making decisions that are life-changing for asylum seekers. This article examines the evolving institutional setting and processes that define the CBSA's enforcement policy and its consequences for asylum seekers in Canada. Drawing on the findings of field-research, conducted between October 2015 and May 2018 in three Canadian provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec), it argues that the Agency operates in a specific social universe heavily shaped by the post-9/11 geopolitical context of the criminalization of migration. This situation has been exacerbated by the major overhaul of Canada's refugee system, undertaken by the previous Conservative government in 2012. The article further contends that the way the CBSA has been involved in refugee status determination turns Canada's refugee system into an adversarial and unfair process for some groups of asylum seekers. To that end, it highlights the CBSA's policies in three areas: eligibility determination, front-end security screening of refugee claimants, and ministerial interventions at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012, Australia reintroduced arrangements for 'offshore processing' in the Pacific, which forcibly transferred asylum seekers arriving by boat to the Republic of Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG), purportedly for refugee status determination (RSD). Previous studies have focused on the detention of asylum seekers transferred to these States in 'regional processing centres' (RPCs). This article instead provides a factual foundation for more current inquiries into the content and scope of each State's protection obligations under international law, which have increased in importance since the end of closed detention in the RPCs in 2015 and 2017. The formal legal and diplomatic arrangements established in and between the three States for the transfer of asylum seekers; processing of their claims; and provision of durable solutions will be examined, with reference to the minimum standards required. The article identifies a protection deficit in the legal architecture and bilateral arrangements underpinning offshore processing. Since their inception, the arrangements have lacked clarity regarding the respective obligations of the three States; involved transfers even in the absence of fair and efficient procedures for RSD in Nauru and PNG; and failed to ensure timely access to appropriate outcomes for all transferees (whether determined to be in need of international protection or not). The article therefore concludes that Australia should facilitate readmission to its territory for all people in Nauru and PNG who do not have access to an appropriate alternative outcome. It also suggests that any future attempts to establish third country transfer procedures will require radically different legal and diplomatic arrangements to enhance responsibility sharing and cooperation on refugee protection, and to comply with international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the role of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the implementation of the European Union (EU) migration and asylum policy in Niger. Building on policy analysis and qualitative interviews with stakeholders, it contributes to the literature on the externalization process of EU borders. The first part of the article focuses on the international and local context in which this process has taken place in Niger since 2015. The second part refers to the principal-agent (PA) theory inspired from economics to model the dynamics of the delegation relationships linking the European Commission (EC) to the IOM and the UNHCR in Niger. It is argued that the two main objectives pursued by the EU through the externalization of its migration and asylum policy—namely the offshoring of border control and the outsourcing of asylum claims processing—are respectively fulfilled by the IOM and the UNHCR in Niger. As such, this article highlights how the cooperation of International Organizations (IOs) is critical to enable the EU to filter and restrict human mobility from the Sahel region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In nearly three years in office, President Donald J. Trump's war against immigrants and the foreign-born seems only to have intensified. Through a series of Executive Branch actions and policies rather than legislation, the Trump Administration has targeted immigrants and visitors from Muslim-majority countries, imposed quotas on and drastically reduced the independence of Immigration Court Judges, cut the number of refugees admitted by more than 80%, cancelled DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), and stationed Immigration Customs and Enforcement ("ICE") agents at state courtrooms to arrest unauthorized immigrants, intimidating them from participating as witnesses and litigants. Although initially saying that only unauthorized immigrants convicted of serious crimes would be prioritized for deportation, the Trump Administration has implicitly given ICE officers carte blanche to arrest unauthorized immigrants anytime, anywhere, creating a climate of fear in immigrant communities. Particularly disturbing is the targeting of asylum-seekers, employing the criminal justice system and the illegal entry statute in the "zero tolerance policy." Under this policy, children, including toddlers, are seized and languish for months and years separate from their families, many of whom are seeking asylum. Directly contrary to federal statute and international law, another policy makes anyone who enters the country without inspection ineligible for asylum. Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump's second Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), ordered asylum applicants to await the lengthy processing of their claims in cartel-ruled border areas of Mexico, with no realistic safe shelter and deprived of all meaningful opportunity to exercise their statutorily-guaranteed right to access to counsel--a necessity, given today's convoluted asylum law. Trump's first Attorney General, Jefferson Sessions, largely disqualified as grounds for asylum even the most brutal and terroristic persecution of women and violence perpetrated by inescapable quasi-state gang actors. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") officers mislead asylum-seekers at the southern border, telling them they don't have the right to apply for asylum or saying yes, they may apply, but admitting only a minute fraction of those who present themselves for processing at ports of entry. President Trump's Administration refuses to grant parole or reasonable bond even to those asylum-seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution, frequently resulting in long-term detention, and forcing on detained asylum-seekers the Hobson's choice of lengthy incarceration in terrible conditions in the United States or the risks of persecution and death in their countries of origin. International law prohibits using the criminal justice system or prolonged administrative detention to deter and discourage bona fide asylum-seekers from asserting and proving their claims. We suggest two remedies: Federal courts should enforce article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (1) by prohibiting criminal charges of unlawful entry against bona fide asylum-seekers until they complete the asylum application process and are denied asylum; and (2) by requiring parole or reasonable bond for asylum-seekers who pass fair credible fear interviews. The article argues that bona fide asylumseekers should be kept in detention only for a short period, if at all, to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, made binding on the United States through our accession to the 1967 Refugee Protocol, generally prohibits "impos[ing] penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees . . . where their life or freedom was threatened." "Penalties" clearly must include not only criminal prosecution and prison, but also prolonged immigration detention and the seizure of children from parents without good cause, for "deterrence" purposes. We argue also that customary international law and human rights treaties support the recommended remedies and stand squarely against the Trump Administration's policies. Federal courts may utilize customary international law directly or through the Charming Betsy canon. Not only do the Trump Administration's harsh immigration policies and practices violate international law and American values, but also foretell a government tending toward exclusion, racism, nationalism, parochialism, authoritarianism, and disregard of the rule of law. The parallels between the Trump Administration and Hungary's autocratic, essentially one-party, state, are chilling. See Patrick Kingsley, He Used to Call Victor Orban an Ally. Now He Calls Him a Symbol of Fascism, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 15, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/europe/viktor-orbanhungary- ivanyi.html (on file with the Columbia Human Rights Law Review). Federal courts, however, have both the authority and the responsibility to enforce the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol as well as international human rights norms to protect asylum-seekers from criminal prosecution and from prolonged detention. The Framers of the United States Constitution and its key amendments envisioned that federal courts would apply treaties as the rule of decision to protect foreigners and would serve as a check upon an Executive that tramples on individual rights, particularly the rights of a vulnerable minority. Given the outlandish behavior of this Administration, federal courts must live up to that vision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the summer of 2015 Hungary constructed a 175 km long barbed-wire fence at its southern border with Serbia. New criminal offences and asylum procedures were introduced that limited access to refugee status determination and ignored agreed EU asylum policy, deterring and de facto preventing asylum seekers from entering Hungarian territory. This paper provides an analysis of these new measures, which criminalized asylum seekers, and the subsequent Hungarian policy in relation to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights – arguing that the Hungarian authorities excessively abused their discretion in implementing these new policies of immigration and border control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research which examined housing and employment opportunities for asylum seekers in Sweden. Topics explored include the Swedish refugee policy which concerns availability of state housing for refugees, concerns expressed by politicians over the social and economic wellbeing of these refugees, and the analysis of labour force participation, economic integration, and resettlement of refugees in the country.

Germany has experienced an unprecedented influx of refugees over the last years. In dealing with the so-called crisis, the management of settlement and housing of refugees is a crucial aspect. Germany's asylum policy—torn between long-term versus short-term and permanent versus temporary approaches and solutions—has equally contradictory spatial implications. This article brings together policy with design. Through the analysis of an architectural project database featuring recent refugee housing projects across Germany and some of its neighboring countries, this paper explores design responses to the refugee influx. It shows that the refugee shelter design is equally torn and reflects the political inconsistency that is symptomatic of the wider context of Germany's current asylum policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current era demands our thoughtful attention to how states process asylum seeker claims for safe haven, yet we know little about the practices through which asylum officials carry out that work. Building from literature on the body and knowledge production, this paper illuminates the workings of (dis)embodiment in the asylum process. I use the term (dis)embodiment to refer to an arrangement of separate yet interdependent practices of disembodying and embodying knowledge. These practices of knowledge production together form an integral part of what I call the “epistemic logic” of asylum - the techniques and processes of reasoning used to produce and analyse information to determine if an asylum seeker qualifies for refugee status. Through an ethnography of the asylum process in Brazil, I document how officials produce and privilege disembodied knowledge, while they contrastingly constrain the knowledge of asylum seekers to their bodies and lived experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the role of Canada's Designated Country of Origin (DCO) policy in the illegalization of asylum seekers. The policy allows the government to designate countries in which it is presumed that citizens do not face risks of persecution, torture, or similar abuse. Refugee claimants from DCOs are thus subject to accelerated processing timelines with reduced rights. Canada has implemented the policy as a way to deal with a backlog of asylum applications, increase efficiency, and exclude fraudulent refugee claims. Based on a primary field research conducted between October 2015 and May 2017 in three provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, this article argues that the DCO policy is likely to have the unintended effect of shifting asylum seekers into an irregular status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We integrate qualitative and quantitative methods to document the long-term impact of international migration remittances on household investment strategies, wealth outcomes, and equity of asset ownership among households in a Moroccan oasis valley. In the early 1960s, nearly 80,000 Moroccan men from the south-eastern oases left their families to work in French coal mines. Anthropological fieldwork shows that this migration event initiated decades-long streams of steady income in the forms of remittances and pension checks. Accompanying household-level empirical analysis shows that this afforded the migrant-sending households a foothold in the ‘new’ economy: Households invested in vocational training, secondary schooling, and business ownership at rates higher than their non-sending counterparts. Migration also hastened the transition of households out of the ‘old economy’ - land and livestock ownership declined for migrant-sending households, particularly those owning more land. We also document that the migration event was unusually open - work in the coal mines was open to virtually anyone - meaning that the recruits came from across the entire class- and economic spectrum. The combination of an unusually low entry cost and the resultant provision of a large and long flow of cash meant that overall, migration was an equalizing force in the economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia has a policy of deterring attempts by asylum seekers to reach the country by boat. In 2001 and again in 2013 a policy of offshore processing was implemented and since 2013 the government has determined that no asylum seeker reaching Australia by boat will be eligible for resettlement in Australia. In addition, current policy provides for the turning back of boats at sea when it is safe to do so, to maintain the integrity of the country’s borders. This article considers Australian public attitudes to asylum policy. It finds that while there is majority support for the right to seek asylum, in response to questions on boat arrivals strong negative views outnumber the strong positive by more than two to one. The findings also show that the young, females, tertiary educated, financially better off and those born in the United Kingdom are more likely oppose turning refugee boats back. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through an examination of New Zealand legislation governing lunacy and the files from the Seacliff Asylum, this article argues how paperwork served to uphold an elusive ideal of a compassionate society. Paper, in the form of letters, reports and forms, was sent up and down the country in order to prevent wrongful confinement and to monitor costs and cure rates. Paper provided for patients allowed them to challenge their incarceration, sometimes successfully. That maze of paperwork, generated for both statutory and institutional administrative ends, mirrored the disorder of those confined within the institution. The curating of digital exhibitions of such materials flattens out their complexity and smooths over what were often disjointed narratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines two online comics about Australia’s policies of detaining asylum seekers, one created by the Australian government’s Customs and Border Protection Service (CBPS), and one published by the experimental journalism site The Global Mail. Through an analysis of the way online readers responded to these comics, this article shows how digital comics use visual style to imply particular kinds of relationships between their authors and their audience, while generating audience engagement through abstracted emotions and narrative gaps. These features have political dimensions, as in the CBPS’s comic, which elides crucial details about the government’s policies while suggesting (but never directly stating) its disregard for the human rights of asylum seekers, while The Global Mail’s comic uses a hand-drawn visual style to generate reader sympathy for the detainees and opposition to the government’s policies. Both comics use visual language to obfuscate key elements about the sources of their messages while also obscuring the voices of the refugees that their images represent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the Italian policies towards immigration, with a particular focus on the Minniti Law regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. The author comments on the migrant crisis originating in Africa and the Middle East as a result of the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, which caused an influx of asylum-seekers in Europe.

Refugee Status Determination is a powerful example of the way in which vulnerability and the law interact. This article examines this interaction by analysing a case study: the special protection visa application procedure in place for certain asylum seekers in Australia (the 'Fast Track Assessment' process) and the implications of this for procedural fairness. We conclude that the current legislative framework for the Fast Track Assessment process operates to exacerbate the circumstances of vulnerability of asylum seekers. Efficiency measures are an important way of avoiding delays in decision-making. However it also increases the propensity of such measures to lead to serious legal errors. Considering the serious consequences of an improperly made decision in this context, we argue that high standards of procedural fairness and an oral hearing are required. The article also demonstrates that a central purpose of due process should be to mitigate (rather than exacerbate) circumstances of vulnerability or marginalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the steps taken by governments in Europe to resolve the high number of refugees entering member countries since the early years of the 21st century. Also cited are the establishment of the Euro-African Dialogue on Migration and Development to counter irregular migration to the region, the cooperation between Italy and Libya to prevent migrants and asylum seekers to Italy, and the high number of African migrants from Eritrea.

The article examines how Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC) can play a larger role in the international refugee regime concerning economically motivated migrants. Topics discussed include International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers; MMIC and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which MIMC develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for refugees.

The article examines how Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC) can play a larger role in the international refugee regime and socioeconomic issues. Topics discussed include International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers; legal regime supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which MIMC develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for refugees.

The article examines how Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC) can play a larger role in the international refugee regime and socioeconomic issues. Topics discussed include International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers; legal regime supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which MIMC develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for refugees.

The article examines how mobility can play a larger role in the international refugee regime and explains Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC). Topics discussed include International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers; legal regime supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which MIMC develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for refugees.

The article examines how mobility can play a larger role in the international refugee regime and explains Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC). Topics discussed include International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers; legal regime supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which MIMC develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for refugees.

The article argues that mobility can and should play a larger role in the international refugee regime and explains Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC). Topics discussed include legal regime supported by the mandate and competency of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which MIMC develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for individuals on the move.

The article argues that mobility can and should play a larger role in the international refugee regime and explains Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC). Topics discussed include legal regime supported by the mandate and competency of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which MIMC develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for individuals on the move.

The article argues that mobility can and should play a larger role in the international refugee regime than is usually recognized. Topics discussed include legal regime supported by the mandate and competency of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC) develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for individuals on the move.

The article argues that mobility can and should play a larger role in the international refugee regime than is usually recognized. Topics discussed include idea of providing opportunities for refugees to move no longer figures in the refugee regime; right of freedom of movement within the asylum State; and ways in which Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC) develops a comprehensive and rights-based framework for individuals on the move.

Traditionally, differences in states' refugee protection contributions have been attributed to the variation in countries' structural pull-factors such as their geographic location. However, policy choices, such as Germany's decision to open its borders for Syrian refugees in 2015, can also have a significant impact on the number of arrivals and constitute a puzzle that traditional approaches struggle to explain. This paper demonstrates that viewing refugee burden-sharing through the lens of public goods theory can provide significant insights about refugee protection dynamics in the EU, in particular in the context of a sudden mass influx of migrants that threatens internal security. By highlighting how free-riding and burden-shifting dynamics can undermine the provision of collective goods during a refugee crisis, a public goods approach can advance our understanding of why countries sometimes accept disproportionate responsibilities for forced migrants and how the effectiveness of EU refugee burden-sharing instruments can, and should, be strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on Moravcsik's Liberal Intergovernmentalism, I offer an explanation of the non-decision on permanent EU refugee quotas. Some traditionally influential Member States in EU asylum politics, such as Germany, Austria and Sweden, received large numbers of refugees and faced strong domestic pressures to engage other Member States in responsibility-sharing. Yet, governments of Member States with small application numbers (among whom several Eastern European governments were particularly vocal) had incentives to undercut responsibility-sharing to avoid similar pressures. Having a better alternative to the potentially negotiated agreement, these governments successfully blocked the introduction of permanent refugee quotas. Besides explaining the absence of an effective response to one of the root causes of the asylum crisis (unequal strains) through asymmetrical interdependence, the article further develops Liberal Intergovernmentalist arguments and shows how national electorates influence positions taken by governments at the EU level when they are mobilized by right-wing populist parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Industrialised countries have applied increasingly restrictive measures to deter people from seeking asylum. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 29 people seeking asylum living in the Australian community who arrived in Australia by boat, this article explores how restrictive policies, including delays in processing refugee claims and the denial of the right to work and access to basic standards of living, are experienced as fundamentally dehumanising. It also explores how interviewees negotiated this in ways that reasserted their humanity. Thematically, many of the responses mapped onto Haslam's "animalising" conceptualisations of dehumanisation in relation to being subject to restrictive policies. Despite the conditions in the community being described as dehumanising, many interviewees were also working hard to find action-orientated activities that were affordable in order to regain a sense of control and independence over their daily lives, such as accessing education and building social connections with others. A number of interviewees also appealed to human rights via speech when describing dehumanising treatments, in effect realigning themselves as humans deserving of rights. Implications for understandings of dehumanisation and for Australia's asylum-seeker policies are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neither the EU. nor Its MS were ready to face the problem of the massive influx of Syrian refugees coming from Turkey in 2015 and 2016. The distribution of competences between the EU and Its MS did not help. Moreover, It brought to light the lack of solidarity among MS and between them and those in need of international protection. EU's answer has been manyefold: Increase development aid in the migrant's countries of origin; fight the smugglers and profiteers of human beings; improve frontier control and help refugees In transit countries. The EU-Turkey agreement plays an essential role in this new policy. The EU needs this agreement to be seen as fair and in accordance with international law besides being useful. But there is a vast majority of critical voices, both from the NGOs and the legal experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores Australia's extraterritorial non-entrée policies, which are designed to prevent the irregular arrival of refugees and keep refugees in countries of origin and first asylum. In an age of securitisation, many States have attempted to restrict access to asylum through a range of extraterritorial measures that seek to prevent refugees from reaching territorial borders in order to claim protection. The first part of this article outlines Australia's unilateral non-entrée policies, including visa requirements, carrier sanctions, airline liaison officers, surveillance technologies, interception at sea, and the excising of Australian territory. The second half of this article explores the emergence of co-operative non-entrée policies, which have seen Australia enter into agreements with its regional neighbours to deter, detain, and deport would-be asylumseekers. Together, these extraterritorial non-entrée policies see Australia's regional neighbours take on the responsibility of border control on behalf of Australia, making it increasingly difficult for refugees to reach Australian territory in order to seek protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of interdisciplinary research examines the dynamics of, policies concerning, and implications of large-scale contemporary displacement in the United States. Yet less of this research explores the intersections of policies concerned with and normative understandings of displacement as both relate to U.S. schooling. This article discusses distinctive features of global displacement also highlighting concerns about student experience within the current political climate. It then synthesizes key U.S. policies and interdisciplinary literature that address aspects of displacement, including immigration, human trafficking, and asylum. In doing so, it illuminates how laws designed to protect vulnerable youth populations often conflict with the goals and normative politics of immigration enforcement. It concludes with implications for educational policy research and practice within U.S. schools serving high percentages of displaced populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that Asylum seeking is being considered to been seen as a security issues rather than a human rights and asylum seekers have come to be considered as agroup of people whom the natives need to be protected from, rather than as been seen as people in need of protection. The views of people of Sweden and the policy of the government is discussed.

During the first phase of the CEAS, the CJEU considered that asylum-seekers had only limited opportunities to appeal against decisions to transfer them to other European countries based on the Dublin system. This interpretation was contrary to the right to an effective remedy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and recognised as a principle of EU Law. With the second phase of the CEAS, the CJEU ruled on two judgements in June 2016 (Ghezelbash and Karim) in which asylum-seekers benefited from the right to an effective remedy against Dublin transfer decisions. The scope of the judicial review was not limited to cases where there was a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment as a result of 'systemic deficiencies' in the procedures and reception conditions in the receiving country. This article argues that this shift in the jurisprudence of the CJEU restores asylum-seekers' status as subjects of EU Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El artículo discurre sobre el estado actual de los haitianos que están solicitando asilo a los Estados Unidos por Tijuana, México. Los autores comentan sobre la historia de la inmigración desde América Latina a los Estados Unidos y describen las políticas gubernamentales asociadas con la inmigración y el asilo en el país.

In the face of the hard-line approach to asylum-seekers currently being taken by both the major political parties in Australia, alienated cosmopolitans have been increasingly inclined to disidentify with the Australian nation and declare 'not in my name'. Although sympathetic both to the cosmopolitan position and to these acts of principled dissent, I express reservations about such an approach on the grounds that it distances the cosmopolitan elite from the democratic mass and inclines towards irresponsibility. Drawing on Socrates as an exemplar, I investigate how citizens with cosmopolitan sensibilities might resist injustice on universal moral grounds without being either condemned by or exiled from their local political community. Ultimately, I argue in favour of an embedded cosmopolitanism that engages critically with the political ethos and calls on citizens to take responsibility for protecting the state in its ideal image. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

El artículo discurre sobre el acuerdo entre la Unión Europea y Turquía en cuanto a los solicitantes de asilo. Los autores comentan sobre los riesgos asociados con la deportación a pesar de este acuerdo y examinan la falta de asistencia y protección jurídica para los refugiados. También se considera rol de la Agencia de la Organización de Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados.

The international community is experiencing a refugee crisis. The worldwide number of displaced persons has reached an all-time high. Refugees and asylum seekers, however, now face unprecedented levels of hostility and opposition to their resettlement in the United States. During the last three years, some states have been at the forefront of a movement to block the resettlement of refugees from the Middle East and asylum seekers from Central America in their jurisdictions. Other states have been in the vanguard of an initiative to welcome those fleeing persecution on humanitarian grounds. This Article explores this new phenomenon of "Refugee Federalism." The Article examines recent state responses to the resettlement of certain groups of refugees and asylees, in particular Middle Eastern refugees and Central American asylees. The piece discusses some states' attempts, through gubernatorial decrees, legislation, and litigation, to curtail the settlement of such refugees and asylees, as well as the countervailing movement by other states to support them. The Article analyzes the perils and possibilities of state engagement with refugee and asylee resettlement. It argues that, in accordance with the Supreme Court's longstanding immigration federalism doctrine, states may not exclude refugees from their territories. But, it also proposes that states may nonetheless benefit from playing a more active role in refugee selection, admission, and integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this wide-ranging survey of recent UK government pronouncements, policies and new legislation relating particularly - but not limited - to 'security', migration and refugee issues, the author exposes a consistent pattern in which human rights concerns are being systematically downgraded. But, at the same time that government is systematically minimising its own accountability over possible abuses committed by its agents or in its name, it is ramping up the policing of the UK population in a catch-all programme that places duties of surveillance on individuals and professionals in almost every sector of society - from nursery nurses to private landlords, from lorry drivers to university lecturers. And, even while professionals from every sector are attempting to question the validity of the government's current policy programme, particularly its so-called counterradicalisation strategy, the right to freedom of expression among Third Sector organisations is being incrementally whittled away. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In May, two flagship measures of the current Conservative UK government, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Immigration Act 2016 were passed, despite opposition from rights and advocacy organisations, charities and individuals in both fields. Based on wide-ranging research carried out before the Acts' passage, the article shows how both Acts will work in tandem to reinforce and exacerbate a fundamental restructuring of the societal landscape, which will particularly impact on multiracial, inner-city and poor communities. They continue a process in which social entitlements are ever more codified and restricted, rights seen as linked to (and dependent on) responsibilities, with certain categories of persons -- undocumented workers, asylum seekers -- excluded from some rights altogether. As the state increasingly divests itself of accountability for its actions, it is placing yet more onus on third-sector organisations to become accountable, not to their clients, but to government targets and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the mass refugee resettlement in Vietnamese and Syrian refugee crisis. It provides a comparative analysis between the procedures put in place for resettling Vietnamese refugees and the procedures currently being considered or implemented for Syrian refugees may prove useful for policymakers as the process of resettlement moves forward.