Migration presents multifaceted challenges for countries like the UK and Denmark, spanning the management of asylum seekers and integration issues. Hollifield (2012) elucidates the complexity of these challenges arising from political, economic, and social factors (p. 345). Amidst these challenges, discussions have emerged about outsourcing asylum processing to third countries, as exemplified by recent debates involving Rwanda. European Union’s (EU) asylum standards overcome the threshold of minimum due to regulatory expertise. This policy aims to unburden the existing domestic asylum systems and harmonize the transfer of asylum granters (Zaun, 2016, p. 140). However, Guild et al. (2015) believe that this entails practical and ethical questions manifested in the embattled EU refugee crisis. Thus, this paper critically looks into the advantages and disadvantages of such policies, considering what they entail for asylum seekers, host countries, and the international community. By comparing the cases, this study contributes to modeling the complexities of global migration governance.
Context Of Migration Policies In Denmark And The UK
An Overview Of Current Asylum Policies In Denmark
Denmark has seen its asylum policies change profoundly in recent years, characteristically manifested by a move towards more restrictive approaches. One distinctive quality is the focus on temporary protection rather than permanent resettlement for refugees. These concepts are particularly evident in policies that grant asylum seekers temporary protection rather than permanent residency (Hollifield, 2012, p. 365). Improvements to Danish asylum policy involve modifications that toughen up the restrictions asylum seekers need to meet. For example, the Norwegian state displays behavior such as confiscating property from asylum applicants to pay for their accommodation (Guild et al., 2015, p. 5). These changes demonstrate Denmark’s attempts to essentialize its asylum system to handle more pressure.
Denmark needs help managing asylum requests from the domestic and international levels. The country has been engaged with growing anti-immigration sentiments and the political discourse concerning the perceived disadvantages of accommodating asylum seekers at home. The Danish public opinion is that asylum seekers have been increasing and will strain the government’s welfare system, and therefore, control of immigration keeps coming up (Hollifield, 2012, p. 350). Internationally, Denmark has been subjected to criticism for its stringent asylum rules, with human rights groups bringing up issues of asylum seekers’ rights abuse (Guild et al., 2015, p. 6). Despite all these obstacles, Denmark managed to find its way into the regulation of asylum policy, being subjected to both national and international pressure at the same time.
An Overview Of Current Asylum Policies In The UK
The UK asylum policy is a combination of national legislation, global obligations, and policy contemplations. The principle of non-refoulement is a fundamental characteristic of the UK asylum rule, and it proposes to safeguard that individuals will not be returned to countries where they could face harassment or harm (Peters, 2019). In addition, the UK offers asylum chasers numerous measures, like granting immigrant status and humanitarian protection (Guild et al., 2015, p. 7). The most recent UK asylum policy includes replacing the asylum system to address the alleged inefficiency and decrease the backlog. The UK Home Office published the Nationality and Borders Bill in 2021, which included amendments that changed the asylum process, for instance, the new criteria for protection and the improved one (Schultheisl & Calamur, 2018). Besides that, the UK is involved in tightening border control and deterring illegal migration through more surveillance and cooperation with neighboring countries (Peter, 2019, p. 290). These changes reflect the UK’s persistent effort to adapt asylum policies to changing migratory flows, navigate conflicting domestic needs, and consider global obligations.
The UK needs assistance handling asylum applications within its jurisdiction since it faces considerable practical constraints and political complexities, especially regarding the prompt processing of asylum requests. This results in overtaxed receptions and backlogs in access to services (Guild et al., 2015, p. 6). In addition, the asylum system is regarded as overly complex and inconsistent, and the quality of decision-making and asylum seekers’ treatment is questioned (Schultheis & Calamur, 2018). Politically, the pressures compel the UK to put stricter immigration laws in place and cut down the number of refugees that seek asylum in the United Kingdom. Anti-immigrant sentiments and populist slogans have permeated the social and political arena, calling for the need for harsh border control and the intensification of the implementation of restrictive asylum policies (Peters, 2019). Additionally, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union is associated with worries about how asylum cooperation will be arranged with the other EU member states and how Brexit will affect asylum (Guild et al., 2015, p. 8). The solution to this issue should be a holistic one that considers the need for speedy asylum processing while upholding asylum seekers’ rights and fulfilling the UK’s international obligations at the same time.
Proposal For Handling Asylum Requests In Third Countries
Third-country handling of asylum applications involves outsourcing asylum procedures to countries outside the jurisdiction of the destination country. This approach aims to ease the burden on the host countries by shifting the asylum evaluation process to other countries. For instance, Denmark and the UK have formed partnerships with countries like Rwanda to handle asylum applications before the applicants arrive at their borders (Schultheis & Calamur, 2018). This strategy, therefore, constitutes a difference from established asylum systems, and the issues revolve around protecting asylum seekers’ rights and the efficiency of the procedures. Both countries have considered implementing this solution of handling asylum applications in third countries in various ways, however. Denmark is an example of a country that has entered into agreements with African countries to establish reception centers for asylum seekers (Guild et al., 2015, p. 5). In contrast, the UK considered similar arrangements that are based on bilateral arrangements and deals with particular countries like Turkey (Peters, 2019, p. 288). These diversities also mark different approaches that states take to handling influxes, among them matters of national security and the welfare of citizens.
One of the arguments presented in the proposal is that some host countries might have capacity limitations that may not permit the admission of many asylum seekers. Through the outsourcing of asylum processing to third-party states with more resources or capacity, asylum seekers are made to pay and processed at a faster pace (Guild et al., 2015, p. 5). Another reason is to quell political and social tensions within the host country. Seeking asylum can result in public services and infrastructure being overstretched, creating resentment among local communities and political groups (Schultheis &Calamur, 2018). Outsourcing asylum processing to third countries can decrease the visibility of asylum seekers within host countries and reduce possible focal points of contention. In the end, the objective of the proposal is to achieve fair and effective refugee processing through the introduction of standard procedures and safeguards in third countries. Through collaboration with reputable bodies, partner organizations, or international institutions, host countries ensure the protection of the rights of asylum seekers and the monitoring of processing procedures (Peters, 2019, p. 290). This approach aims to ensure coherence between effective border control and respect for the rights and dignity of asylum seekers.
Pros Of Handling Asylum Requests In Third Countries
Practical Advantages
The externalization of asylum claims in third countries can relieve pressure on the national asylum systems through the sharing of responsibility for processing asylum claims (Guild et al., 2015, p. 5). According to Abdelaaty (2021, p. 346), by delegating part of the processing stress to countries with more resources or capacity, host countries can effectively and timely deliver services for asylum seekers as well as manage their asylum systems accordingly (Abdelaaty, 2021, p. 346). In essence, this strategy offers practical solutions to the influx of asylum seekers’ issues.
Besides the practical gain of accepting asylum applications in third countries, a reduction in irregular migration flow may be another benefit of this approach. Countries may prevent migrants from undertaking risky journeys and use unusual entry methods by developing processing centers for migrants in regions where most migration starts (Schultheis & Calamur, 2018). This approach resonates with the broader strategies to address the root causes of irregular migration and set up safe and legal migration channels. In the end, reducing the number of applications can improve the management of asylum requests abroad rather than in the countries of origin and thus create more structured migration processes.
The competencies acquired through the workshop on processing asylum requests in third countries enhance the process of asylum procedures and positively impact the efficiency of their implementation. By centralizing processing activities in specific centers, countries can establish a uniform procedure and ensure uniform decisions have been made (Peters, 2019, p. 290). Betts (2011) remarks that such an approach eliminates bureaucratic hold-ups and increases the entire quality of refugee processing. Furthermore, using technological applications and good practices will help some of these countries improve the efficiency of their asylum systems and resolve asylum cases faster (Betts, 2011). Consequently, this method will likely improve the efficiency and quality of asylum decisions.
Ethical Considerations
Public safety and security of asylum seekers are significant moral advantages of considering asylum applications in other countries. Countries can protect asylum seekers by installing processing centers in areas where they are secure from cases of prosecution and harm. They are locations that are lawful and stable (Guild et al., 2015, p. 5). According to Hakhverdian (2019), this principle protects the applicant against exploitation and mistreatment during the process and applies to vulnerable individuals (Hakhverdian, 2019). In essence, by putting the security and safety of the asylum seekers at the heart of the decision-making, we express the principles of human rights and humanism.
Furthermore, handling asylum applications in third-country states ensures the fair sharing of asylum responsibility among countries. By sharing the asylum claims processing burden, countries can address inequalities in terms of resources for asylum (Schultheis & Calamur, 2018). According to Hakhverdian (2019), this approach promotes collaboration among countries. As such, the refugees will be shared equally across the continent, and no one country alone should bear the burden of sanctuaries for the asylum seekers (Hakhverdian, 2019). Countries can jointly build collaborative and cooperative mechanisms in the area of migration issues and thus contribute to the effective management of forced migration and better results for asylum seekers.
Cons Of Handling Asylum Requests In Third Countries
Practical Challenges
One of the practical problems faced with the processing of asylum applications in third countries is the risk involved with outsourcing asylum processing to less stable countries. Nations with weak legal systems or political instability would require some assistance to comply with international standards of asylum practices and protection (Zaun, 2016, p.140). Thus, asylum seekers can be subject to more substantial risks of exploitation, abuse, or refoulement in these countries. This raises questions about the safety and security of asylum seekers and the integrity of the asylum process.
Another practical problem is the probability that human rights violations and international law will occur. Third countries often lack adequate legal safeguards or tools to protect the rights of asylum seekers and guarantee fair and impartial asylum proceedings (Abdelaaty, 2021, p. 347). As Koca (2015, p.210) points out, this arouses concerns about the possibility of arbitrary detention, denial of access to legal representation, and deportation to countries where individuals risk persecution or harm (Koca, 2015,p. 210). The violation of these principles threatens the foundation of asylum and refugee protection, which forms part of international law and human rights.
Additionally, dealing with asylum applications in third countries can result in no accountability and oversight in the whole asylum process. Betts (2011) says that host countries may have difficulties in controlling and regulating what third-country partners do and, in this way, can leave the accountability unreached and cause abuse among these partners (Betts, 2011). The absence of solid mechanisms for supervision and accountability poses the risk that asylum may be susceptible to political interferences, corrupt practices, and other forms of malpractices that may affect the credibility of the whole system if the proper checks and balances systems are not put in place.
Ethical Concerns
One ethical issue is the possibility that the externalization of asylum processing to third states may weaken the protection principles of asylum and refugee protection. Through outsourcing asylum processing to third countries, countries can give higher priority to border control and deterrence measures rather than their duties to give shelter and safety to the persecuted and the violence-affected refugees (Abdelaaty, 2023). This brings to question the dedication to meeting the obligations of not returning the people who claim political asylum and the non-refoulment principle, which forbids the return of the people back to countries that may expose them to persecution.
Managing asylum cases in third states only can further worsen the existent inequality and disproportionality in asylum access. De Haas et al. (2019, p.892) argue that powerful or resourceful states may strike better relations with third states, while disempowered or passerby groups can face more obstacles in accessing asylum (De Haas et al., 2019, p. 892). This may reinforce injustices and inequalities within the asylum system, weakening the efforts to promote fairness, equity, and solidarity in asylum policies and practices.
In addition, responding to asylum requests in other countries may cause diplomatic problems with those third countries. Tensions and conflicts may arise if states see outsourcing the processing of asylum claims as an unwelcoming or unequal arrangement (Hakhverdian, 2019). Newland (2010, p.330) highlights that conflicts among countries may arise over their resources, responsibilities, and the treatment of asylum seekers, undermining the attempts to develop trust and cooperation on migration issues (Newland, 2010, p.330). Therefore, while the outsourcing of asylum processing is a matter of individual countries, it also has much more profound geopolitical implications, both at the level of diplomatic relations and regional stability.
Case Study: Rwanda As A Potential Third Country For Asylum Processing
Rwanda has achieved significant milestones in the development of its asylum policies and procedures in the recent past. The country has ratified important international refugee treaties and has also created legal frameworks to protect refugees and asylum seekers (Hollifield, 2012, p.350). In addition to that, Rwanda is also a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, showing its high regard for refugee protection. Regarding the infrastructural facilities, Rwanda has established refugee camps and reception centers to accommodate asylum seekers and refugees with support from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (De Haas et al., 2019, p. 890). Rwanda undertook these programs to ensure that refugees are fully integrated into the communities and given access to educational services, health services, and livelihood opportunities.
The level of stability in Rwanda, its faithfulness to refugee protection, and its available infrastructure made it a preferred state to host refugees from third countries. The country’s asylum application procedures conform to international requirements, thus allowing for easier processing of asylum-seekers applications (Guild et al., 2015, p. 7). Rwanda’s geographical position in the East African region also makes it strategically located to handle migration inflows from neighboring countries that are experiencing conflict or unrest (Hakhverdian, 2019). However, impediments like resource limitations and weak processing capacity can pose difficulties for Rwanda to expand its processing operations to cater for large numbers of asylum seekers
Benefits of the third-country processing center of Rwanda include that asylum seekers are provided with access to protection and humanitarian assistance as their requests are being processed. According to Betts (2011), this policy could also reduce offshoring pressure experienced by host countries with constrained capacity and ensure streamlined asylum procedures (Peters, 2019, p. 290). However, the efforts might also present some potential downsides, such as doubts about the sufficient provisions of protection mechanisms and the possibility of human rights violations (Abdelaaty, 2021, p. 2827). Besides, externalizing the asylum processing to Rwanda would inevitably lead to ethical concerns about the asylum seekers’ appropriate treatment and non-refoulement (Peters, 2019, p.291). Thus, the choice of Rwanda as a third-country processing country should be undertaken with due regard to its advantages and disadvantages for asylum seekers, the host country, and the global community.
Conclusion
The analysis of the policy on the management of asylum applications of the third countries, including Denmark, the UK, and Rwanda, as case studies, illustrates the complexity of the migration policy landscape. Despite their practical advantages in terms of a lighter strain on domestic systems, this approach still implies ethical difficulties regarding human rights and asylum. The intricate details driving this entail the need for more scholarly research and discussion on diverse tactics that work. It is essential to pinpoint solutions that accentuate the protection and dignity of asylum seekers as well as provide an appropriate response to the complex problems regarding migration governance on a global scale.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdelaaty, L. (2023). Do rights violations deter refugees? [online] Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2075838 [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].
Abdelaaty, L., (2021). Refugees and guesthood in Turkey. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), pp.2827–2848.
Abdelaaty, L., (2021). Rivalry, ethnicity, and asylum admissions worldwide. International Interactions, 47(2), pp.346-373. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2020.1814768.
Betts, A. ed., (2011). Global migration governance. Oxford University Press.
De Haas, H., Czaika, M., Flahaux, M.L., Mahendra, E., Natter, K., Vezzoli, S. and Villares‐Varela, M., 2019. International migration: Trends, determinants, and policy effects. Population and Development Review, 45(4), pp.885-922. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12291.
Guild, E., Costello, C., Garlick, M. and Moreno-Lax, V., (2015). The 2015 refugee crisis in the European Union (pp. 4–9). Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Hakhverdian, A. (2019). SRV Podcast, episode 47 – How rich democracies repel asylum seekers, with David Fitzgerald – StukRoodVlees. [online] StukRoodVlees – Politicologie en actualiteit. Available at: https://stukroodvlees.nl/srv-podcast-episode-47-how-rich-democracies-repel-asylum-seekers-with-david-fitzgerald/ [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].
Hollifield, J.F., (2012). Migration and international relations. Pp. 345–380. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195337228.013.0015. [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].
Koca, B.T., (2015). Deconstructing Turkey’s “open door” policy towards refugees from Syria. Migration Letters, 12(3), 209–225.
Newland, K., (2010). Governance of international migration: Mechanisms, processes, and institutions. Global Governance, 16, p. 331–343. Available at: pp. 331–343.https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01603004.
Peters, M.E., (2019). Immigration and international law. International Studies Quarterly, 63(2), 281–295. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy063.
Ruhs, M., (2018). Labor immigration policies in high-income countries: Variations across political regimes and varieties of capitalism. The Journal of Legal Studies, 47(S1), pp.89–127. Available at: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/694000 [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].
Schultheis, E. and Calamur, K. (2018). The Atlantic. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/un-global-migration-compact-germany-europe/577840/ [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].
Traynor, I. and Kingsley, P. (2015). EU governments push through a divisive deal to share 120,000 refugees. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/22/eu-governments-divisive-quotas-deal-share-120000-refugees#:~:text=EU%20governments%20push%20through%20divisive%20deal%20to%20share%20120%2C000%20refugees,-This%20article%20is&text=European%20governments%20have%20forced%20through,that%20several%20states%20bitterly%20opposed. [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].
Zaun, N., (2016). Why EU asylum standards exceed the lowest common denominator: the role of regulatory expertise in EU decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(1), 136–154. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2015.1039565?scroll=top&needAccess=true [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].
write