Securitization of Migration Impact on the Protection of the Rights of Refugees - Report Example

Securitization of migration impact on the protection of the rights of refugees Introduction Migration has got to be one of the most quarrelsome political issues across the world and especially in Europe. It has been connected with different issues, including terrorism, social distress, war, criminality and natural disasters. As a result, migration and asylum issues have got to be paramount subjects of contemporary security legislative issues, both in the real world as well as in the institutes. The issue of migration has progressively given climb to serious political discussion after the official boycott on labor migration chosen by the lions share of European nations in the 1970s. It has been joined to a wide cluster of financial or political issues, including criminality, law and other breaches, unemployment, ill-use of social benefits, social and religious dangers, social turmoil, and political unsteadiness. Some political pioneers and media outlets have even depicted it as a security risk. Migration has been an issue of the UK because of the growing numbers of refugees from all over the world. There are a number of countries that are experiencing an unstable political situation, economic downturn and terrorism, such as Syria, Gaza, Iraq and many other regions. Compared to other types of migrants, refugees have an advantage that no country can force them to go back to the place where their lives are at risk. In the UK, for the rights and protection of refugees usually human rights law is applied to them as well as being a European country and member of the European union, the UK has to consider policies defined by the European Union. However, member countries have the power to dismiss the implementation of such policies for the well being of the domestic law and order and economic situation. With the introduction of the changes made in the security system of the UK, the survival of migrants becomes very difficult and almost impossible for them to access their rights (Lebovic and Voeten, 2006). In this report, we will analyze the impact of securitization of migration on the protection of the rights of refugees. Securitization of Migration The term securitization of migration means security measures that are designed for migrants, whether refugees, labors or others. Under the vast subject of the securitization of migration the policy makers have to consider a number of things such as the positive and negative impacts of a policy on host societies and on the migrants themselves. According to migration scholars, there is a strong link between migration and security for evident reasons. Studies have shown that immigrants are found highly involved in criminal and illegal activities compared to native and local people. As of now it is assessed that more than 120 million individuals exist in nations other than those in which they were born. The numbers of human populace developments are seen to be great to the point that the twentieth century has been known as The Age of Migration (Castles and Miller, 1993). Others have gone so far as to portray the pattern of migration as The Global Migration Crisis bringing out a feeling of danger whats more frailty (Weiner, 1995). By the end of the Cold War, the idea of security has experienced a change. Accordingly, migration has progressively been portrayed in security terms. The procedure in which migration discussion shifts to a stress on security has been alluded to as the securitization of migration. This movement in the discussion will be analyzed to uncover how inside the reformulation of security and migration lay the fundamentals of new prejudice. With the securitization of migration, the host country, for instance the UK government is only sensitive about the well being of their native population, the country’s economy and social infrastructure instead of helping those who are at risk. The securitization of migration discussion has been established by the terror that migrants may be defenders of insurgencies. Migrants are presently being inspected as potential defenders to insurgencies and terrorist groups (Sheffer, n.d.). With the passage of time and specifically after the 9/11 incident in the US, the issue of migration has been evaluated as serious and emerging security issue which challenged the international security agenda of many countries including the United Kingdom. The reason for changing the security measures for the migrants is the strong opposition of immigrants by certain political parties and leaders. With such opposition, the natives of the UK are caught in the fear of terrorism and as a result, they are not accepting refugees as victims and are treating them ineffectively. Migrants as Threat Unfortunately, throughout the UK, migrants are presumed as the biggest threat to the economy, social security and cultural issues. For the purpose states and policy makers have shifted their focus regarding refugees and migrants from human rights to human security. The shift of migration as human security threats, along with other numerous threats, for example, narcotics trafficking, is unsettling. In this regard migration is a threat for those who have migrated from their countries and have crossed the border just to escape war, mistreatment, and craving (Bourbeau, 2011). On the other hand, because of this new "human-focused" approach it is the migrants themselves who are presumed as the biggest threat to the population of the host country. This is the mystery of the human focused methodology to migrate. As opposed to concentrating on how to help migrants, who are at risk, the new standard builds their powerlessness. Hence, this human focused methodology is impeding to transients as it leads one to question whose "human security" is to be initially secured, the native or the migrants? The impact of Securitization of Migration on the rights of Refugees Before discussing the impact of securitization of migration on refugees, it is important to understand the legal definition of a refugee. According to the International refugee law, a refugee is everyone who is forced to live outside their country of birth or origin or the former habitual residence. They are unable to free themselves from the fear of being persecuted or are unwilling to take advantage from the protection of their country. In this definition the term ‘fear of being persecuted’ must satisfy one of the five factors: religion, membership of a political opinion, nationality, belongingness to a particular social class and race. According to this definition, a refugee cannot be forced to go back to their country of origin because of the potential fear of persecution for any reason, such as religion, membership of a political opinion, nationality, belongingness to a particular social class and race. Securitization of migration has a very controversial image in policy making as well as in academic debate. The reason behind its controversial image is political and ethical concerns which raised several questions about migrants who are at risk of persecution and about the security threats of local/domestic population. Such questions resulted in a number of viewpoints; some of them are strongly criticizing securitization of migration, whereas some others are presuming it as a right policy. The most important thing about the securitization of migration is its impact on the rights of refugees who are already suffering from injustice, cruelty and fear. One of the most problematic things about the securitization of migration is how to differentiate different types of migrants because not all migrants can be refugees. This inability compelled the policy makers to generalize the term that will be applied on every migrant including refugee. According to this generalize term every migrant constitutes a serious threat to the social, economical and public security (Fauser, 2006). This generalization will treat the illegal economic migrants and the war migrants equally which is against human rights. Another impact on the rights of refugees as a result of securitization of migration is difficulties in accessing to their legal rights. They have to go through long and discriminating procedures that make them dishearten and caught them in further fear. Securitization of migration causes xenophobia and racism among the native population that make them harsh to refugees instead of helping them to become a member of a healthy society. High growth of racism results in a change in the domestic political situation by favoring neo-Nazi movements. A real world example of the conservatization of the general public could be the situation of Greece, with the expanding impact of the neo-Nazi association "Χρυσή Αυγή" (Golden Dawn) succeeded in the Greek society. The fundamental contentions of this association is described fundamentally by the summon of racial and religious immaculateness, while some of their primary mottoes incorporate " Foreigners Out", "Every immigrant causes an unemployed Greek", and "Greece fits in with Greeks." A comparable circumstance has created in various different nations incorporating Russia with Chechen aggregates in France and Italy with the Roma populaces, in Canada with generally Asian bunches and in many other regions. Securitization of migration restricts NGOs and other social working and human rights organization from supporting refugees because they are unable to access them freely. In this regard due to the act of securitization of migration increase the growth of inequality, injustice and reduce the positive contribution of the society in reducing poverty. Due to a shift in focus under the securitization of migration from human rights to human security, refugees cannot become a part of the society and they cannot contribute in the growth and development of the society. As a result, they remain as a burden on the society and the economy of the country. They are not able to get good jobs, to access health care facilities and to access their legal rights defined by the Refugee Convention. There are a number of refugees who are unable to get their right of asylum and the right of family protection (Fauser, 2006). This new approach created several issues for refugees even at the time of crossing border where most of them are not allowed to do so. Compared to the past, today, the numbers of security forces are high on the borders of the UK to stop illegal migrants, but due to the confusion between illegal economic migrants and refugees the security forces are treating them equally. In this regard, securitization of migration made it difficult for the state of UK to protect the rights of refugees, explained by refugee law, human rights and the Refugee Convention. They have likewise lessened the privileges of the migrants and asylum seekers who stay in their regions, with respect to conditions for family reunification, access to the work market, and access to social profits for instance. With the increasing dependence of security on the approach of securitization of migration created several threats for refugees and has violated many rights of them. For example, lack of dignity and respect, difficulties in accessing asylum, increasing numbers of tortures on migrants, no access to jobs and social activities and no access to private and family life. Proper Measures for the registration of Migrants A country who is acting as a host to migrants, especially to refugees has a great responsibility to accommodate them and to take care of their rights because a poor treatment and behavior with refugees can pose serious threats to the international image of the country. UK has a very strong image across the globe and is assumed as one of the powerful and developed countries in terms of politics, human rights, law and order, technology and economy. The securitization of migration approach is a threat to the well being of refugees, but at the same time it can damage the image of the country across the globe. At this point, the government of the UK must take some corrective measures regarding the registration of migrants because this is the only way through which different types of migrants can be differentiated. The UK government has already increased the numbers of security forces on their borders therefore, they can easily registered migrants. They should first complete the registration process of each migrant and then they should allow them to cross the border. In this way they will easily differentiate different types of migrants. The differentiation of the migrants will help the country to stop the entry of illegal migrants as well as will allow the government and policy makers to implement different types of security measures for the security of the state, native population and for the protection of the rights of refugees. Such a registration will also help the government of the UK to send back these refugees to their countries of origin once the situation in their country of origin becomes peaceful. In this way the government will not only provide them proper assistance, access to their rights and a respectable environment in the country. UK has been playing a vital role in protecting the rights of refugees and many native populations of the country is still supporting the rights of refugees and have showed their consent to change the policies in securitization of migration. Conclusion Although, the security and well being of the state and domestic people are necessary, but it does not mean that for the security of the state the government should alter the individual rights of refugees. Refugees are totally different types of immigrants compared to economic migrants because they are forced to leave their country because of persecution. There is no law and no human rights organization that is in the favor of the securitization of migration because in such a situation refugees are at higher risk. There are a number of steps that the government of the UK can take to improve the system of securitization of migration. This is important for the government of UK to revise their system because refugees are themselves victims of war, terrorism and persecution and it is against human rights to treat them in a same way to the illegal economic migrants. The human security approach explained that migration has been contended to represent a risk to a states national investment through its effect on the states economy. Migration has, and will keep on, a noteworthy financial effect on both the host nation and the nation of inception. While migration has monetary favorable circumstances and inconveniences, the extension of the meaning of security to envelop the financial part has brought expanded thoughtfulness regarding the financial difficulties created by migration, and movement has, therefore, been named as a security issue. Though, it is true that migrants can pose a threat to the economy of the host state as they are in the condition to receive proper assistance in terms of food, shelter and health care however, this is only for a short time. If proper chances are provided to the migrants (refugees) they can contribute effectively in the societal well being and can strengthen the economy. Under the approach of securitization of migration, the refugee’s rights cannot be protected effectively. Even the State of the World’s Refugees (UNHCR) also commented about the increasing popularity of the securitization issues of the migrants. UNCHR said that the development of new security concerns for states, especially since after the event of 11 September 2001, has headed to the "securitization" of haven hones. Progressively displaced people and haven seekers will be seen as harbingers of frailty, rather than assuming them as victims (Lebovic and Voeten, 2006). In this regard, the UK’s policy makers should revise the securitization of migration for the well being of refugees. References Bourbeau, P. (2011). The securitization of migration. 1st ed. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge. Castles, S. and Miller, M. (1993). The age of migration. 1st ed. New York: Guilford Press. Fauser, M. (2006). Transnational Migration--A National Security Risk? Securitization of Migration Policies in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Center for International Relations. Ibrahim, M. (2005). The Securitization of Migration: A Racial Discourse1. International Migration, 43(5), pp.163--187. Lazaridis, G. (2010). Security, insecurity, and migration in Europe. 1st ed. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Lebovic, J. and Voeten, E. (2006). The politics of shame: the condemnation of country human rights practices in the UNCHR. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4), pp.861--888. Sheffer, G. (n.d.). Ethno-National Diasporas and Security. 1st ed. Weiner, M. (1995). The global migration crisis. 1st ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Read More