Notes while reading Refugee Law Reader

In attempting to word my proposal and in hindsight of writing my JRP I realized that I need to clarify my language of migration, forced migration, as well as refugee status factors and International Law usage of refugee versus common usage of the word.

Words that I believe will be important in such – perhaps I should create glossary:

Refugee

Asylum seeker

Economic refugee

Environmental refugee

Forced migrant(tion)

Migrant worker

Exile(d)

Migration

Immigration

Emigration

Third country resettlement

Internally displaced persons

Detention centers

Refugee camps

Settlements

Protracted displacement

In my search for language clarification I began reading: The Refugee Law Reader: Cases, Documents, Materials. http://www.refugeelawreader.org produced by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee copy righted 2002-3. In their introduction they stressed the importance of understanding context in which Refugee Law emerged; vowing on their own page to: introduce major concepts of Regular and Irregular migration; give information of migration historically; convince a magnitude of migration in the beginning of the 21^st century; and regional and international standards for status determination. The site listed main debates which I would like to give my initial reactions to better understand my own position.

Main Debates

Is there a human right of freedom to move to another country?

I know this is stated as one of the Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document which I hold in high appreciation and respect – this document is one that influences my self perception as I was born on the 39^th anniversary of its adoption in the UN General Assembly each year my question is not what did I do this year it is what have I done for Human Rights this year. The directly relevant articles are 13, 14, and 15. Article 13 states: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state; (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”. Article 14 states: “(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution; (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Article 15 states: “(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality; (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” I have included right to and to change a nationality as this is the case of some refugees from Burma. Burma denies they are Burmese citizens and Thailand refuses them Thai citizenship, nationality becomes directly relevant to cases of migration especially for those seeking asylum in the second country as deportation becomes a constant threat.

Do I think it is a right to flee from one country to another? This is difficult, I believe people have to right to flee countries where UDHR specified rights are being denied to them but I recognize that if the second, or third, country does not have adequate resources to handle a refugee population - especially long term refugees like in the case of a the conflicts in Burma which have no change in sight and have already persisted for decades – the rights of asylum seekers might not be protected in the country of refuge either. Many countries are worried of oversaturation of refugees like the US in her reluctance to accept “economic refugees” whose home countries could not fulfill the protection of Article 22 – “everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.” What do you do when there is no alternative to underfunded refugee camps, which if not managed properly severely restrict development of person and deny right to livelihood?

Is migration an asset to, or a burden for, sending and receiving states?

This I do not understand fully yet as I do not understand all complexities of economic systems. Yes, migration brought Albert Einstein to the US but the argument that “regular” and “irregular” persons of migration can add to the overall skill of a workforce will not do much to woo those affected by job losses in struggling economy. Illegal migration keeps costs low for some business men in the US – the fact of which implies denial of Article 23 – “(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment; (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work; (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection; (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” These two arguments are the ones that I have heard for and against receiving migrants. But I believe there are systems - in existence or not – in which even refugees could become an asset and not strictly a burden.

.

What is the relationship between past movements and present migration policies?

I have limited ideas. Surely each nation has rules specific to the situations that they have dealt with -this is linked with the burden/asset question, and the resources of the nation. I will learn of the present migration policies in Thailand, and now seek the influence of past migrations if it is not immediately apparent.

While writing this a manager of the guest house I am staying at came up to an Italian guest and I and began speaking about a DVB program he had just watched about a temple in Mae Sot that ran out of food to give out to Burmese people who had crossed the border on 9-9-09 to receive food from the monastery. He said that many people lost money on the trip, a worker on average gets 4000 kyat as a man per day and 2000 kyat as a woman per day. Then he spoke of his own work permit in Thailand of the validity period I cannot recall exactly what he said either 2 or 10 years cost 2100 baht.

The Refugee Law Reader also included:

Main Points

Unlimited exit v. limited entry rights

Trade-offs between regular and irregular routes

Migration as a pervasive feature of the human experience

I do not yet understand these main points well if at all, but will keep them in mind during my studies. And I certainly agree that migration had been a pervasive feature of human experience, our new borders have made it more difficult this line of argument comes to issues of ownership and governance large topics with a wide range of views. A can of worms better left shut?