The Term Refugee - Essay Example

No one leaves their home willingly or gladly, when people leave their earth, the place of their birth, the place where they live, it means that thereis something very deeply wrong with the circumstances in their country… I entreat you… when you think about the problem of refugees to think of them not in the abstract. Do not think of them in the bureaucratic language of ‘decisions’ and ‘declarations’ and ‘priorities’… I entreat you think of the human beings who are touched by your decisions. Think of the lives who wait on your help. - President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, 6th President of Latvia, Asylum Seeker during World War II The term ‘refugee’ garners reactions that span the spectrum from sympathy to hatred. As the “personification of the chaos and insecurities that we confront in the new century,” asylum seekers become a potent symbol of loss in both the physical and symbolic sense (Helton, 2002). In the physical sense, fleeing from one’s homeland results in the loss of property, positions in society, and social networks. In the symbolic sense, the refugee loses his or her identity as a rightful citizen of a country, and claiming asylum results in placing the individual in a liminal space in which their citizenship, and thus their right to belong, is scrutinized (Helton, 2002). This scrutiny is exacerbated by the perceptions of the host country towards refugees – perceptions that are frequently soiled with xenophobic and intolerant sentiments rather than with the genuine desire to rescue people from tyranny and suffering (Turk and Nicholson, 2003). This disdainful attitude towards refugees is no where as apparent as it is in Western Europe, which “has become synonymous with antagonism towards asylum…[with] a particularly virulent debate regarding unwanted ‘bogus’ asylum seekers occur[ing]… in the United Kingdom” (Helton, 2002). Arguably among one of the richest countries in the world, Britain accounts for housing less than 2% of the world’s refugees, with the vast majority of asylum seekers finding refuge in squalid refugee camps in developing countries throughout Africa and Asia (Refugee Council, 2010). As a result of historical, external, and internal factors, refugee policies in the UK have made claiming asylum in the UK exceedingly more challenging, especially with the growing emphasis on ‘bogus’ claimants (Schuster, 2003). As a result this racist rhetoric of the bogus-enemy-within, a sentiment that is frequently utilized by fear-mongering politicians as a means to acquire public support during campaign season, the case of Fernando Espinosa rests less on fulfilling the stipulations set out in the 1951 United Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and more on the labor needs and social climate of the United Kingdom at the time of application. Although it virulently espouses having a “proud tradition of providing a place of safety for genuine refugees,” the history of refugee law-in-practice in the UK creates a very different picture (Home Office: UK Border Agency, 2010). In 2000, The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) reviewed and redefined the eight considerations for accepting refugee claims, as outlined in the 1951 Convention; these round-table considerations were officially published under the Guidelines of International Protection in 2003. The first consideration is the tenet of non-refoulement, which states that any measure resulting in the denial or hindrance of a refugee is strictly prohibited by all states who signed the convention. Secondly, illegal entry is protected by Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, which “codifies a principle of immunity from penalties for refugees who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened and enter or are present in a country without authorization” (Turk and Nicholson, 2003). The third consideration addresses the right to claim asylum if having membership in a specific social group leaves the individual vulnerable to persecution. Fourth, as “gender can influence, or dictate, the type of persecution or harm suffered and the reason for this treatment,” gender considerations must be included when providing asylum (Turk and Nicholson, 2003). Fifth, in order to avoid internal flight and relocation, host states must situate the individual in an environment that does not cause undue hardships. The sixth consideration is that of exclusion, in which refugee case workers must not grant asylum to claimants suspected of perpetrating human rights violations. The seventh stipulation, cessation, asserts that refugee organizations should grant asylum for a certain amount of time until it perceives the hostilities in the native country to have subsided, after which the refugee claim can be ceased. Lastly, as protection and unity of family is an essential right of all individuals, “the responsibility to uphold this right falls in part on the court of asylum, since unlike voluntary migrants, refugees cannot be expected to reunite in their country of origin” (Turk and Nicholson, 2003). The purpose of these considerations is simple; they are to ensure that the individual is granted their legal human rights while safeguarding against fraudulent acts and incursions by unlawful and undeserving claimants. Initially, the UK Border Agency must determine the following two facts: first, the Agency must be provided evidence that the current government, La Mentira, is instigating aggressions against the Le Verdad candidate and, by affiliation, to his/her Cuchillo supporters; second, FE must provide evidence that unequivocally links him to the social group, the Cuchillo. Proving these two assumptions as accurate would satisfy the third consideration of belonging to a persecuted social group, as well as the sixth consideration of exclusion. On these groups alone, FE must be provided asylum, even on a temporary basis, under the first consideration of non-refoulement. Subsequently, the second consideration exempts FE from punishment if he illegally enters the UK because that would result in refoulement, which is prohibited by the first consideration. Finally, in light of the fact that several of the considerations have been met, the UK Border Agency becomes responsible for providing FE with a suitable situation in terms of housing and economic support, so as to decrease the potential for internal flight and relocation. A future consideration in the cessation clause and the right of FE to family unity, which may result in initiating a process of bringing FE’s family over to the UK and, if the time comes, creating a plan to assist FE and his family to return to the ROA after the cessation of the socio-political conflict. If the considerations laid out in the 1951 Convention, and clarified in the 2003 UNHCR Guidelines of International Protection, are strictly followed, FE is, without a doubt, a legitimate applicant for refugee status, and should be provided asylum in the UK. However, the reality of refugee policies in the UK reveals a system that is claiming to do a lot while actually doing very little for the claimants. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act was passed in 1993, “in order to remove what was seen as an incentive to migrants to apply for asylum in Britain” (Schuster, 2003). In addition to this shameful move, which acts as a justification for maintaining the damaging rhetoric of the ‘bogus’ claimant, the UK continues to downplay the following six issues: first, asylum seekers do not get large handouts from the state, some receiving as little as 5£ a day; second, the vast majority of asylum claimants are law-abiding citizens; third, refugees and immigrants contribute to the UK in terms of services and professional skills; fourth, asylum seekers are usually looking for a safe place to stay on a temporary basis until the climate in their native countries becomes favorable; fifth, the British asylum system is confusing and intimidating, in that any refugee can be detained at any time for any reason; and sixth, poor countries house the overwhelming majority of refugees, not the UK (“Refugee Council Online, 2010). Finally, the current criticisms against the 2010 Fast-Track asylum system has proven it a failure in regards to observing the fourth consideration, gender-based persecution, as a legitimate reason for asylum in the UK. “So far, 2,055 women have gone through the fast track process… government statistics for 2008 and the first half of 2009 show that 91 percent of appeals were refused” (Stop Honour Killings, 2010). Therefore, these issues suggest that a very different outcome on the FE case may be reached once in the hands of the UK Border Agency, especially if FE had been a female escaping civil and sexual persecution. Clearly, the UNHCR must assert more control over the refugee process to ensure that those deserving of asylum in theory receive it in reality. References Feller, E., Turk, V., & Nicholson, F. (Eds.). (2003). Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCRs Global Consultations on International Protection. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 3-45. Print. Helton, A. C. (2002). The Price of Indifference: Refugees and Humanitarian Action in the New Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 7-29; 120-198;257-274; 298-308. Print. Home Office: UK Border Agency. Asylum, 2010. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/ Refugee Council Online. The Facts about Asylum, 2010. 10 Dec. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/practice/basics/facts.htm Schuster, L. (2003). The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum in Britain and Germany. London: Frank Cass. 131-179. Print. “UK: ‘Fast Track’ Asylum System Fails Women.” International Campaign against Honour Killings. Stop Honour Killings. 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2010. Read More