Refugee research paper

Kowalik_DefiningRefugees.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >Refugee research paper

Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 29:68–75 Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2017.1272309

Defining Refugees in Terms of Justice Kyrie Kowalik

Today, the debate on what constitutes justice has turned to one of the most pressing controversies in the Western world: the concept and defini- tion of refugees. This debate can be exemplified through the case of the Mexico–United States border. In 2015, according to Karen Zeigler and Steven Camarota, the United States has had approximately 42 million immigrants cross the Mexican border. There are many scholarly debates regarding which, if any, of these migrants should be considered a refugee. This distinction is most important, as how each group or individual is defined can determine each state’s obligation to assist them, and the benefits for which each is eligible.

Andrew E. Shacknove writes that currently the United Nations (UN) defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a partic- ular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such a fear is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” Many prominent political philosophers support the UN definition, believing that since it is only feasible to take some in, then only those that fear death should be considered. In discussing the works of the aforementioned authors, I argue against the narrow UN definition, showing that those who are fleeing economic persecution should also be considered refugees under international law due to the same likelihood of death, and that the equal consideration principle can only be considered in economic means, not in cultural.

To begin, Joseph Carens’ article, “Refugees and the Limits of Obligation,”argues for the importance of creating social institutions in order to cre- ate an ideal world where refugees do not exist. If this is not possible then nations should have a moral obligation to assist those refugees that do not have any other opportunities. Furthermore, Carens believes that states should not be seeking or looking to assist refugees that are not on their own terri- tory. Another key aspect from this work is the equal consideration princi- ple, where the effects on both the refugees and the current population are considered equally. As a state takes in refugees it may initially only have a marginal effect on the current population, but as more refugees come into the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2017.1272309

Defining Refugees in Terms of Justice 69

state, the effects may increasingly be more and more negative, both econom- ically and culturally. Carens argues against this principle as “Our knowledge is so limited and our concern for our own interests normally so powerful. …” The focus of the equal consideration principle on looking at the effects on each population equally will be important to the proposal of this study, argu- ing though that only economic concerns can be considered just reasons for not accepting refugees.

The above discussion outlines a state’s obligation to assist refugees, and the effects on the original population, but does not thoroughly define who should be considered a refugee. Andrew Shacknove creates a compelling argument in his article “Who is a Refugee?” Shacknove begins by arguing that due to the inability to access resources if one is not considered a refugee, the definition of whom should be considered a refugee is the most impor- tant part of the process. According to Shacknove, a refugee is someone who no longer has a successful social contract with their government. The gov- ernment no longer protects the citizen, and in some cases attacks the citizen through secret police or civil war. Therefore, Shacknove argues that once a contract breaks, it is the obligation of another nation to recreate the contract that is broken. Shacknove also challenges the UN definition of a refugee, stat- ing that there are many ways a nation can break the contract with its citizens, including a lack of access to basic necessities. The inclusion of economic plight within the definition of a refugee defines more accurately those that are fleeing all types of persecution. While this argument takes an important step forward, it fails to elaborate or grasp the persecution of economic refugees, which will be discussed further below.

Matthew Lister defines refugees and their rights from a different perspec-tive. Lister argues that scholars cannot solely focus on the definition of a refugee without taking into consideration what actions should be taken to assist these refugees. He argues that the definition of refugees should be some- what limited so that states can truly fulfill their duties and offer permanent, not temporary, resettlement options. Therefore, only the neediest should be considered refugees, which would be those escaping persecution, who, if sent home, would likely be killed. Lister also argues that those who migrate due to economic concerns should not be considered refugees as there are many other manners in which to assist them; that aid in the form of money and medicine would be more beneficial. Another debate discusses whether or not refugees who are in camps should be given priority over those who have already arrived in the new country. For Lister, due to international sovereignty considerations, nations can only accept those claiming refugee status that have arrived on their own soil.

Max Cherem agrees with Lister: due to limited resources, nations can only assist those most in need or those escaping persecution. He argues that

70 Kyrie Kowalik

those who are escaping persecution, not only do not have their basic needs met, but also need new membership, making them separate from economic migrants, who are not in need of a new membership, but solely need assistance with obtaining their basic needs, which can be met in other ways. Cherem also provides a key distinction between immigrants and refugees: “immigrants can be helped at home, refugees cannot,” and where resources are scarce only those who cannot find means elsewhere should receive refugee consideration.

Cherem does not provide any clear examples, however, of what distin- guishes an immigrant from a refugee. Would he consider an undocumented immigrant in the United States from Mexico a refugee? It is unclear if he would consider their ability to return home as enough for them to be consid- ered merely an immigrant and not a refugee. Cherem also separates member- ship rights from the right of non-refoulement, which refers to the right of a refugee to not be sent back to a place where they were and likely will be perse- cuted. While most scholars can agree on the right of non-refoulment, the right of membership is where most debates occur. Most states agree that they will not send refugees back, but will also not always grant them full membership into their society.

Another important work that evaluates membership in a society is John Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness.” While Rawls does not specifically dis- cuss refugees, his arguments provide a framework for looking at the refugee debate. In order to accomplish his goal of creating a society built on unity and cooperation, Rawls’ envisions a thought experiment where all parties of a society go under the veil of ignorance. Under the veil each person forgets their race, ethnicity, class, and location, and then is asked without bias how they would organize a just society? In this scenario Rawls believes each per- son would have an equal opportunity of being in the lower class, minority, or marginalized group, and therefore, would organize society in a way that would allow the lowest groups to be lifted, acknowledging that some inequal- ity would still be present. This principle, known as the difference principle, takes into account the risk of creating an unequal society as there is an equal chance that each person will end up at the bottom of the population. The prin- ciple of lifting up the worst off, will be a pivotal point to this proposal as the definition of a refugee has not yet been looked at from the perspective of the veil of ignorance.

While each of these authors makes some agreeable points, they all fail totruly grasp the life-threatening experiences facing economic migrants, nor do they take into account real world examples. It is for this reason that this proposal finds a middle ground, combining all of the strengths of the aforementioned articles into one proposal. Throughout the development of this proposal three assumptions will be utilized: First: That all humans should be treated equally, regardless of membership. Second: Rawls’ difference

Defining Refugees in Terms of Justice 71

principle will apply internationally (not just domestically). Third: Only those who have arrived within the nation-state will be considered.

The third distinction above is unfortunately important, and often may contradict with the first and second assumptions. Some scholars argue that those who are unable to escape to another country are likely to be the most in need. As an example, however, many who travel from Mexico’s rural com- munities to the United States do so without resources. These groups travel by hitchhiking in trucks and trains, and receive handouts of food by nonprofits along the way. These examples lead one to believe that those who are able to travel may very well be among the worst off. In addition, while helping everyone in need of assistance regardless of boundary would be ideal, this is not possible in terms of sovereignty and in terms of resources. It is for these reasons that the longer-term development of social institutions should not be abandoned. One exception does exist; if another nation has a group of refugees that the state is no longer able to sustain, and a second nation has not reached its breaking point, the second nation would be morally obligated to assist with settling this group of refugees.

One may ask, but what is the breaking point? For the purposes of this proposal the equal consideration principle will be utilized with some alter- ations and specifications. One must assume that the principle is meant to be utilized both for cultural and economic terms. This proposal argues that countries should only be able to turn asylum applicants away if economically unable to handle the burdens, or if the person is not considered a refugee under this expanded definition. Many are afraid that if a high number of refugees are provided membership, their communities would change, but as the case study below will show, these refugees are coming into Western countries whether or not the communities are able to handle them. Furthermore, how can it be con- sidered just if one can economically assist someone who has a broken social contract simply because culturally the community does not want them there? Therefore, when holding to assumption one, that all humans are created equal regardless of membership, if a nation is having difficulties culturally handling the influx of refugees, in terms of justice, this is not an acceptable reason not to accept refugees. If a nation is not able to cope culturally with an increase in refugees, then cultural awareness programs should be developed.

Another important aspect that must be taken into consideration is thedeveloped world’s responsibility or influence in the creation of a world that has so many refugees. Developing countries have been marginalized for centuries with developed nations, making it extremely difficult for the devel- oping countries to move away from corruption. If the developed world is not going to share the resources or provide the developing world a chance to bet- ter itself, then they are even more morally obligated to assist. For example, according to D. Bentley, the top .7 percent (approximately 34 million people)

72 Kyrie Kowalik

of the world population hold 45 percent of international wealth. The majority of the 34 million people are within the developed world, with the exception being several corrupt leaders in the developing world. With the developed world holding so much of the wealth, how can those within the developing world build their own communities? Not only does this wealth inequity con- firm that the West needs to take responsibility for its actions in controlling resources, this example also provides another reason why cultural reasons are not sufficient for turning away a refugee. Financially, the Western world can support these refugees.

This leads to the final point of the proposal: who should be considered a refugee? As each human is considered important, refugees of both persecu- tory and economic nature should be considered refugees, and be given mem- bership within a new nation. While this study does not disagree with the needs of those being persecuted, the above authors do not fully account for the trials of economic refugees. Not only has the government broken the social con- tract; additionally, economic trials can be life threatening in the same manner as persecution. If one cannot afford to eat, malnutrition will surely lead to death, especially when this occurs for children.

This proposal believes that if people are unable to find any work in their own country for over a year, but have traveled to and obtained work in another country, they should be considered refugees. Again, sovereignty laws ensure that only those that have arrived in a new country should be included here. As was discussed briefly above, while many may argue that those who are worse off economically are unable to travel to another country, nowadays many travel without any financial resources, risking their lives traveling through deserts, crossing treacherous water by boat, and on trains filled with gangs, all in search of a job to support their families. It is for this reason that refugees for economic reasons deserve the same non-refoulment rights as those escaping persecution. Furthermore, if these refugees have already arrived in the coun- try and can contribute to the economy, it is not efficient to utilize resources to send them back, especially because, as Cherem argues, resources are limited. It would be a more efficient use of resources to help those that have arrived settle in the new country as they would then be able to pay back the resources through taxes. If these limited resources are used to send them back, not only does the country lose the resources, but it gains nothing from their potential contributions.

As the above discussion has suggested, the line between refugee andimmigrant can be very difficult to draw. For the purposes of this pro- posal a refugee is someone who is forced from their homeland due to a well- founded fear for their life, regardless of whether that fear be from persecution or lack of employment/access to resources. An immigrant or migrant is some- one who chooses to move from their home to another nation even though

Defining Refugees in Terms of Justice 73

they are not being persecuted, and have legitimate employment opportuni- ties in their home nation. As the case study below will show, this distinction is important. Many refer to migrants as those traveling for economic reasons without taking into consideration the direness of their situation. Those without any other employment opportunities in their homeland have more in common with persecutory refugees than with immigrants who choose to move. When taking these distinctions into account it becomes clear that the United States is not acting justly with regard to the refugee or migrant conflicts currently occurring.

Since 1965, millions of Mexicans and Central Americans have crossed into the United States without proper documentation. Many of these people crossed into the country to escape wars, but a large portion of them crossed into an unknown land in search of economic opportunity. These people have, throughout history, been referred to as immigrants, undocumented immi- grants, illegal immigrants, and even as illegal aliens, but few if any have been referred to as refugees.

The Guatemalan civil war provides a valid example of one of the rea- sons why the United States should accept them as refugees. In Bitter Fruit, Schlesinger discusses how in 1954 the United States infiltrated a coup of the democratically elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Árbenz, and put Jorge Ubico, a military dictator, into power, thus creating civil war. If it was not for the United States’ interruption into Guatemalan sovereignty it is likely that this coup would never have happened. Fast forward 60 years, and Guatemala still has not been able to find stability, and still experiences difficulty obtaining economic development for its people. It is for this reason that a large portion of its population is unable to find jobs, and so they look to the United States for employment. According to Aviva Chomsky, however, the United States has maintained a quota system since 1965 in which each country is allotted the same number of legal immigrants each year. This is a system of formal equal- ity, but not one in which everyone benefits equally. By categorizing those trav- eling to the United States in desperate hope for employment as immigrants, the United States creates a system in which it does not have to help those it has hindered. It is for these reasons that many desperate for work travel through dangerous situations to the United States. Gonzalez argues that approximately 50,000 of these Guatemalans are deported each year, and forced to return to a country where they have no hope of supporting themselves or their families.

One may ask then, what happens to those deported to their home coun-try? The documentary Abused followed families from Central America and Mexico after a raid in Postville, Iowa forced them to return to their home country in 2008. These women were working in a meatpacking factory for up to 80 hours a week without proper overtime pay, without benefits, with- out protection of minimum wage laws, all because they arrived in the United

74 Kyrie Kowalik

States illegally, and could not turn to authorities for protection. Instead of attacking their employers for these treacherous abuses of power, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) infiltrated the factory and detained all those they could find that were in the United States without proper documentation. After many women spent time imprisoned, they were sent back to their home- lands. One mother discussed how her 3-year-old daughter was growing in the United States, receiving proper nutrition, and could have protein and milk daily. In their home country they were unable to work, and therefore, only ate protein or milk once a month or so. Her daughter had stopped growing and was becoming malnourished.

These examples show several manners in which economic refugees are just as likely to face an early death and suffering as those that are facing perse- cution. These economic refugees had already arrived in the United States and were working in horrible conditions, but were still able to feed their families, which is more than they achieved at home. Not only is it an injustice from a moral perspective that after contributing to the creation of these refugees, the United States forces them home, but it is an inefficient use of limited resources. It is for this reason that if those undocumented “immigrants” in the United States can prove that they were unable to find employment in their home town for over a year, they should be considered refugees and granted access to membership within the United States. If granted refugee status, they would no longer be deported and would be able to contribute to the U.S. economy.

Some may argue against this notion, stating that refugees would ruin the cultural aspects of the United States. Some others would argue that they would take jobs that U.S. citizens need. Millions of these people, however, have already traveled to the United States, and being considered illegal has not stopped them from coming to the country; it has only stopped them from being protected within the law. This not only shows their desperation and their need of refugee status, but it also shows that changing their status will not likely change the culture, or more importantly, the economy any more than it already has, meaning the equal consideration level would not change.

Overall, analysis supports the idea that Western countries have the eco-nomic capabilities to assist more refugees, and until this economic limit has been reached, they have an obligation to accept more refugees, both of the persecutory and economic type. While the likelihood of this proposal being moved forward in the current political climate is unlikely, the discus- sion is an important one on the road to culturally changing public opinion. Citizens need to understand the role their nations have played in creating these tragedies. Furthermore, while something similar to this plan should be enacted to assist those that are in need now, a plan for long-term change also needed to be enacted as soon as possible. Without these changes, as both case

Defining Refugees in Terms of Justice 75

studies show, whether or not one refers to them as migrants, immigrants, ille- gals, or refugees, they are still coming, and are making changes to the cultural dynamic of the world whether or not the West is ready for it. Therefore, the West should begin to make changes to be prepared for it, and better assist those in need.