The wealthy ‘Democratic’ policy makers in EU and US are forgetting to answer the roots of the migration/refugee turmoil

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.