International Law on Migration and Asylum

Over half a million people have committed to making the journey from their home countries in the Middle East and North Africa to seek asylum in Europe.  As the war in Syria continues on it can be expected that more and more Syrians are going to be fleeing the country. While the majority of Refugees are seeking asylum in Europe, the migration crisis has become a focus of international law. Issues have arisen in response to the influx of refugees that international law can best address, such as country quotas for accepting refugees.

Recently the EU approved a plan that will fairly distribute 120,000 refugees among countries in Europe. While many countries such as Greece and Germany are over their designated quota, there are other countries that are under quota that are going to be expected to open their borders to more refugees. All countries will be accountable for providing asylum to refugees, despite some countries opposition to the plan. However, each country’s quota is different because the EU established the quotas based on the size of the countries economy and population.

There are other International actors such as the United Nations, that have addressed the legal issues associated with the large quantity of refugees seeking asylum in European nations. There is international law that protects refugees seeking asylum. The 1951 Refugee Convention held in Geneva by the United Nations defines who a refugee is and what countries legal obligations are in providing asylum for the refugees. Refugees continue to be protected by the international law outlined during the UN convention in 1951.

In order to ensure that the nations of the European Union are staying true to international law protecting refugees, the EU adopted the Common European Asylum System in 1999. According to international law, specifically through the Dublin Regulation, if a refugee is seeking asylum in the EU they must be registered through the country at which they enter the EU. While this legislation may serve as effective under ordinary circumstances, it is flawed when dealing with large quantities of refugees. Currently the EU has waived the requirement of applying for asylum in the first country of entrance, allowing refugees to apply for asylum in other countries in the EU. The primary reason for this is that many refugees are crossing the Mediterranean Sea to enter into Europe; therefore the EU nations that border the Mediterranean Sea have been the primary point of entry and would have been required to provide asylum for all of the migrants if the international law had not been annulled.

As more and more refugees are making it to landlocked countries in Europe it is becoming apparent that the EU’s decision to waive the international law that requires refugees to apply for asylum in the country of entrance has benefited both the refugees and the european countries.  Distributing the refugees using the quota system has removed some of the economic burden from countries that were over quota and has provided refugees with a destination where they will be able to apply for asylum.  It is important to remember that while the majority of refugees are going to Europe seeking asylum, the refugee crisis is a global issue and requires the attention of international law and international assistance.

Where the U.S. Candidates stand on the Migration Crisis

After listening to the democratic debate last night I thought it would be interesting to look into where the different candidates stand on the migration crisis.  In early September the candidates had interviews with MSNBC during which they spoke about the viewpoints of the crisis, whether they think it is a crisis, if they think the U.S. should intervene,etc.

Democratic candidate Martin O’Malley concerns regarding the crisis were made clear when he started a petition in support of the U.S. accepting at least 65,000 refugees in 2016.  Other democratic canditates including Clinton and Sanders agree that the United States should do their part to help during the crisis.  Hilary stated “We should do our part, as should the Europeans; but this is a broader, global crisis”, suggesting that the crisis is not a problem solvable by one country, that it will take the cooperation of many countries to provide relief for the Syrian refugees.  Bernie Sanders takes a similar standpoint as Clinton, he stated “the world has got to respond, the United States should be a part of that response.”.  He emphasized that the U.S. should play a role in responding to the crisis but he also acknowledged the importance of other Middle Eastern countries role in providing relief for Syrian refugees.

Republican candidate Donald Trump has a different stand on how much the U.S. should get involved in the migration crisis.  He recognizes that the the migration crisis is a problem but he states that “Europe is handling it”.  He emphasizes that the U.S. has many issues of its own that need to be addressed, “there’s a huge problem, and we should help as much as possible, but we do have to fix our own country.”.  Other republican candidates such as Ben Carson have stated the increasing the number of refugees that the United States accepts would be a safety hazard for our country.

The U.S. candidates have both many similar and yet many differing stand points on the migration crisis.  No matter what their stance all candidates must and have acknowledged that 7 million Syrians have been displaced by the war since 2011and from this have chosen to defend their claim for how the U.S. should respond.