Posted b Belarmino D. Saguing Rome, Italy, December 21, 2016
(source:
Migration Policy Institute “Top
10 of 2016 – Issue #1: Dawn of New Migration Reality Brings Focus on Borders,
Returns, and Integration” by Demetrius Papadementriou and Susan Fratzkie.
December 20 2016)
In Europe, for governments, integration was the
focus of extraordinary policy activism and innovation in 2016. What they are clearly forgetting is the root
causes of this massive phenomena, which is war and widespread poverty and
hunger. The European powers must also exert more efforts in ending wars in the
areas of origins of the immigrant. They have to recognize that the cause of the
massive movement of the refugees are war fanned by the wealthy imperialist
countries and their greed for the usurpation of the poorer countries’ vast
supplies of oil, cheap natural resources and labor.
When the history of 2016 is written, it will be
remembered as a year of continuing turmoil and policy experiments reflecting,
among other things, seemingly irreconcilable tensions between competing policy
priorities. The outcome of the U.S. presidential election may complicate
matters even further. For destination and host countries worldwide, balancing
the imperatives of protection, integration, and control will remain both a top
priority and a constant challenge. Policymakers will need to recognize that the
continued presence of drivers such as acute poverty and conflict means that the
migration and refugee crisis will not be over soon. Going forward, there is
only one option: to continue and scale up the investments and policy innovation
across the migration continuum—in border enforcement, returns, and
integration—that marked the more positive side of 2016. If not, 2017 will only
bring more disorder and political pain.
In many countries, simultaneous investments in
better protection and integration, on the one hand, and border and postentry
controls and effective returns, on the other, have created a new policy palette
that has unnerved advocacy groups and many social service providers—who fear
that policies such as restrictions on family reunification or limitations on
where refugees can live will make it more difficult for refugees to integrate.
A much more widespread concern is that greater efforts at migration control in
Europe, the United States, and elsewhere may encourage reduced generosity in
countries of first asylum. In May 2016, the Kenyan government cited the fact
that "in Europe, rich, prosperous, and democratic countries are turning
away refugees" as one justification for its planned closure of Dadaab, the
world’s largest refugee camp. And the flurry of EU readmission agreements with
Afghanistan has been accompanied by a push by neighboring Pakistan and Iran to
repatriate Afghan refugees within their borders, leading international agencies
to warn of a looming humanitarian crisis. Nearly 1 million Afghan refugees were
returned in 2016 by Pakistan and Iran. Subsequent announcements by both
Kenya and Pakistan that they had extended the deadlines for refugees’ departure
following assurances of more aid or other concessions from international donors
underline both the complexity and political calculus behind these decisions.
