Refugee or Economic Migrant: Challenging The Dichotomy
Movement of individuals from one place to another can be motivated for reasons that varies. Refugee and economic migrants are the two prominent categories to classify population displacement based on their motives. This oversimplification for a category creates an endless debate of how limited these legal definitions are to determine the lives of millions of individuals with their own socio-economic factors and motivations to mobilize. In recent times, these terms have been used frequently to assist populist views in circumstances akin to the Europe refugee crisis. The essay will assess the distinguishing definitions of both ‘refugees’ and ‘economic migrants’, and how this terminology could be important for governments to deal with individuals that falls under these categories in their own countries.
UNHCR defines refugees as persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution, with international law 1951 refugee convention and 1967 protocol defined and protected refugees. The principles under this law are refugees should not be expelled or returned to situations where their life and freedom would be under threat. Refugees are sometimes defined as ‘forced migration’ or ‘reactive migration’, as opposed to ‘proactive migration’. Abrupt and unexpected changes in the environmental, economic, social, political situation may precipitate to what is called reactive migration (Richmond, 1993). Furthermore, Richmond listed determinants and typology of reactive migrations, which is lead by the major motive “Political/political”, of people fleeing from their origin countries that are torn by war from results of internal conflict within their countries. More types of reactive migrations include coalescing drivers, namely environmental, social, economic, bio-psychological, etc.
The global perception towards ‘economic migrants’ have been mostly hostile. Economic migrants mobilize mainly to find a better living conditions, to progress to a new job. (Richmond, 1993) categorizes proactive movement as when the decision to migrate has been made with thought and considerations of the consequence. Unlike refugees, individuals that falls under the classifications of migrants, whichever the type are not entitled and not protected by international laws. Economic migrants could move in and out of their origin country safely without impediment. Most movements for economic migrants occur from a relatively poor and conflict-ridden place to a relatively affluent and thriving places with better economies. Pointing to the fact that the economic status of countries varies over time, directions of migratory flow could also differ from time to time (Boski, 2013).
The question of what makes an asylum seeker a ‘‘genuine’’ refugee is already a highly contentious debate (Vaughan Robinson, Jeremy Segrott, 2002). International definition notwithstanding, there is also a considerable amount of influence from nation-states for their policies in receiving refugees/migrants. In the cold war era, refugee policies discussion in Western industrial countries, namely the United States, focused on escapees from communism, as they were used for ideological purposes, and resettlement and asylum policy in the West generally favoured applicant from communist countries (Keely, 1996). This case echoes with the problems of asylum migrations to Western Europe. Refugees has the right of non-refoulement, which is the right not to be returned to their country of origin. As it is complex to justify refusing protection for the ‘‘genuine’’ refugees, most of the asylum applicants are accepted as refugees de facto and are granted for non-refoulement, despite that, they are not officially granted asylum and are often not provided with the same rights as given to those granted asylum (UNHCR, 2000). Countries of origins also plays a significant role in their economic condition, which is highly significant determinants of the total numbers of asylum seekers coming to Western Europe. Receiving countries could advance to alleviate movement of asylum from being too intensified if their policies could aid to figure out the elemental causes of conflict and human rights abuse. If the receiving countries fails to do so, and mitigate these events from taking place, then it will have to face the consequence of migration pressure (Neumayer, 2005). These classifications could get convoluted, thus making individual mobilities, of whether they are indeed “genuine” refugees or a mere economic migrants could result in a matter of life-or-death situation.
Some extent of the political determinants of asylum migration such as ethnic/civil war, state failure, repressive political conditions, dissident violence, are somehow often not recognized as valid grounds to grant full asylum status in various Western European countries (Neumayer, 2005). Germany would reject asylum applications for those persecuted by non-governmental agents, but might grant them with de facto protection (UNHCR, 2000). Policies and practices as such could further invigorate the blurring lines of definition between the two terminologies. (Randall Hansen, 2000) stated that the migration landscape has changed significantly in the 1970s when asylum seekers have seen a dramatical change, as they were originating mostly from a third world country, with less in common culturally with Europeans and receiving countries than the preceding movements; arriving illegally by means of traffickers and false documentations.
Despite popular beliefs that the most asylum seekers are in fact economic migrants, there are evidence of them leaving their origin country because of concerns of conflict and war. Political violence and civil war have always been the strongest predictors of forced migration (Crawley, 2010). (Crawley, 2010) pointed out that most of the respondents of those arriving into Greece in 2015, most had said they had fled the countries in fear of violence, as they had grown more and more intolerable and in turn, anxious for their personal security, and how it will harm their families. Threats of personal insecurity namely nuclear threats, ecological disaster, economic collapse, or the rising of a military dictatorship in an otherwise steady social system and nation-state will surge the tension and what (Giddens, 1990) calls ‘high consequence risks of modernity’ (Richmond, 1993).
There also exist a distinction in the way refugees and economic migrants in their mobility from one destination to another. Choices that are made by asylum seekers were able to be made as factors of education, age, countries of origin, socio-economic status and education along with networks of people that could aid the journey from one place to another in the future (Crawley, 2010). As like any other migrants who mobilize from one place to another, refugees also made choices, although with narrower range of possibilities. Another thing is that some refugees choose to settle and integrate into local society rather than remain in camps, this could be because states/governments may be a greater cause of violence than say, local dangers. Refugee camps are a place of hard choices where the individuals residing, and powerful officials and governments time in time face failures. There has been evidences of insecurity (Chaulia, 2003) to poor health and sanitation (Médecins Sans Frontières, 1997). Under the Biden administration, the US government birthed a new refugee camp, which, under confusion over mixed policies after the plans of Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program, has only made the conditions of the camp much worse, with talks of kidnapping attempts went rampant, and various sanitation problems. The choice for refugees to stay afloat and seek for safety as compared to those of economic migrants is virtually disparate, as economic migrants seek to move to a new destination to maximize their net advantage. For economic migrants, their freedom and safety are not under threat, thus making their choices much broader, and to add to it the possible discrepancy of financial resources between those of refugees and economic migrants. For some, migrating to another country could be caused by a threat to their lifestyle, loosing of their roots, longing for preservation of their own communities and cultures (Richmond, 1993).
Political actions and initiatives that implies most asylum seekers or refugees are actually economic migrants, thus indicating them for not deserving of international protection could further the endless and aggressive debate which will induce racism and discrimination against the asylum seekers. The terminology and categorizations of migrants are highly political. One of the distinction of refugees and economic migrants from the international definition is the motivation and reason behind their mobility, whether it is political, conflict, or economic reason, but it needs reminding that these reasons change over space and time. There are narrower range of choices for refugees to seek security and basic human well-being, as opposed to economic migrants. It is not feasible to categorize between individuals who are mobilizing and migrating into one destination with their endless motivations behind their movements into one legal definition. We have the personal responsibility to avoid falling into trap of suggesting that individuals that falls over one category from another are somehow more deserving. Policies should be made to fit the fluidity and made on the basis of a scale, rather than two distinct categories, and individuals should be treated independently from one another. It is essential that we reconsider and challenge this dichotomy, especially one that could propagate fear and animosity towards the other ‘type’.
This essay was written for the course Understanding Global Migration at University of Sussex.
References
Boski, P., 2013. A Psychology of Economic Migration. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Chaulia, S. S., 2003. The Politics of Refugee Hosting in Tanzania: From Open Door to Unsustainability, Insecurity and Receding Receptivity. Journal of Refugee Studies, Volume 16.
Crawley, H., 2010. Understanding why asylum seekers come to the UK. London: Refugee Council .
Ehrkamp, P., 2017. Geographies of migration I: Refugees. Progress in Human Geography, Volume 4.
Giddens, A., 1990. The Consequence of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keely, C. B., 1996. How Nation-States Create and Respond to Refugee Flows. In: The International Migration Review. s.l.:s.n., pp. 1046–1066.
Médecins Sans Frontières, 1997. Refugee Health — an Approach to Emergency Situations. In: London: s.n., p. 85.
Neumayer, E., 2005. Bogus Refugees? The Determinants of Asylum Migration to Western Europe. International Studies Quarterly (2005) , Volume 49, pp. 389–409.
Randall Hansen, D. K., 2000. Illiberalism and the New Politics of Asylum: Liberalism’s. In: Political Quarterly. s.l.:s.n., p. 396.
Richmond, A., 1993. Reactive Migration: Sociological Perspectives on Refugee Movements. In: Journal of Refugee Studies Vol. 6. No. I 1993. Toronto: Centre for Refugee Studies, York University, Toronto, pp. 7–24.
UNHCR, 2000. The State of the World’s Refugees 2000FFifty Years of Humanitarian Action. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Vaughan Robinson, Jeremy Segrott, 2002. Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers. London: Home Office.
