Introduction

In the previous lesson we focused specifically on mobility and migration. In this lesson we spend some time considering a particular group of migrants: refugees and asylum seekers. You will be challenged to compare and contrast refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants, while also considering how flexible or rigid the definition of “refugee” should be. You will also examine a series of maps of refugee locations and be asked to determine any trends in the refugee numbers, as well as any spatial patterns you might see, and the potential policy implications of those trends and patterns.

Objectives

Upon completion of this lesson, you will:

1. Compare the experiences of refugee and asylum seekers with those of other types of migrants.
2. Evaluate the social and political position of refugees and asylum seekers within host states with regard to mobility.
3. Evaluate the differences between environment- and conflict-driven forms of migration for refugees and asylum seekers with regard to host, intermediary, and destination states.
4. Critique the presumed security implications of countries receiving refugees and asylum seekers against actualized security issues.

This lesson is one week in length. Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates. To finish this lesson, you must complete the activities listed below. You may find it useful to print this page out first so that you can follow along with the directions.

In the previous lesson we spent a great deal of time discussing migrants and the different types of migration. We specifically discussed “forced migration,” where individuals are coerced to migrate, which includes asylum seekers and refugees. As evidenced by the title of this lesson, asylum seekers and refugees will be the focus of this week.  First, we should begin with how these two categories of migrants are defined and how they are related to each other.

The definitions of who refugees and asylum seekers are should be relatively cut and dry; however, you’ll find that like with much of what we discuss, this is not the case (even though this is probably one time it really should be quite easy). Generally speaking, both refugees and asylum seekers are persons who are leaving their country of origin and seeking residence in a destination country due to persecution of some kind, violation of human rights, natural disasters, etc. The major difference between asylum seekers and refugees is that asylum seekers are waiting for legal recognition of their refugee status (Amnesty International, 2021).

Refugee status does come with certain legal protections under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Optional Protocol relating to the status of refugees. The 1951 Convention defines a refugee as a person “who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group” (International Justice Resource Center, n.d.). While the Convention and Protocol provide legal for refugees and the rights afforded to them, it does not indicate how a state determines who is a refugee, which has led to differences in how countries determine who is a refugee (International Justice Resource Center, n.d.; Zetter 2007).  That said, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 146 countries signed the 1951 Convention and 146 signed the 1967 Protocol. The number of countries that signed one or both is 149 and are depicted in Figure 1. South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation, gained independence in 2011, and ratified the 1951 convention in 2018. Don’t let the years fool you, though the Refugee Convention and Protocol were written in 1951 and 1967, respectively, countries continue to ratify the contents.

Figure 8.1 Map displaying the ratifiers of either the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol as of at least 2018.

Click here to see the data for the map above

Table 8.1 - Ratifiers of the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol

Country	Convention	Protocol
Afghanistan	30 Aug 2005 - Accession	30 Aug 2005 - Accession
Albania	18 Aug 1992 - Accession	18 Aug 1992 - Accession
Algeria	21 Feb 1963 - Succession	08 Nov 1967 - Accession
Angola	23 Jun 1981 - Accession	23 Jun 1981 - Accession
Antigua and Barbuda	07 Sep 1995 - Accession	07 Sep 1995 - Accession
Argentina	15 Nov 1961 - Accession	06 Dec 1967 - Accession
Armenia	06 Jul 1993 - Accession	06 Jul 1993 - Accession
Australia	22 Jan 1954 - Accession	13 Dec 1973 - Accession
Austria	01 Nov 1954 - Ratification	05 Sep 1973 - Accession
Azerbaijan	12 Feb 1993 - Accession	12 Feb 1993 - Accession
Bahamas (the)	15 Sep 1993 - Accession	15 Sep 1993 - Accession
Belarus	23 Aug 2001 - Accession	23 Aug 2001 - Accession
Belgium	22 Jul 1953 - Ratification	08 Apr 1969 - Accession
Belize	27 Jun 1990 - Accession	27 Jun 1990 - Accession
Benin	04 Apr 1962 - Succession	06 Jul 1970 - Accession
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)	09 Feb 1982 - Accession	09 Feb 1982 - Accession
Bosnia and Herzegovina	01 Sep 1993 - Succession	01 Sep 1993 - Succession
Botswana	06 Jan 1969 - Accession	06 Jan 1969 - Accession
Brazil	16 Nov 1960 - Ratification	07 Apr 1972 - Accession
Bulgaria	12 May 1993 - Accession	12 May 1993 - Accession
Burkina Faso	18 Jun 1980 - Accession	18 Jun 1980 - Accession
Burundi	19 Jul 1963 - Accession	15 Mar 1971 - Accession
Cabo Verde		09 Jul 1987 - Accession
Cambodia	15 Oct 1992 - Accession	15 Oct 1992 - Accession
Cameroon	23 Oct 1961 - Succession	19 Sep 1967 - Accession
Canada	04 Jun 1969 - Accession	04 Jun 1969 - Accession
Central African Republic (the)	04 Sep 1962 - Succession	30 Aug 1967 - Accession
Chad	19 Aug 1981 - Accession	19 Aug 1981 - Accession
Chile	28 Jan 1972 - Accession
China	24 Sep 1982 - Accession	24 Sep 1982 - Accession
Colombia	10 Oct 1961 - Ratification	04 Mar 1980 - Accession
Congo (the)	15 Oct 1962 - Succession	10 Jul 1970 - Accession
Costa Rica	28 Mar 1978 - Accession	28 Mar 1978 - Accession
Côte d'Ivoire	08 Dec 1961 - Succession	16 Feb 1970 - Accession
Croatia	12 Oct 1992 - Succession	12 Oct 1992 - Succession
Cyprus (the)	16 May 1963 - Succession	09 Jul 1968 - Accession
Czech Republic (the)	11 May 1993 - Succession	11 May 1993 - Succession
Denmark	04 Dec 1952 - Ratification	29 Jan 1968 - Accession
Democratic Republic of the Congo (the)	19 July 1965 - Accession	13 Jan 1975 - Accession
Djibouti	09 Aug 1977 - Succession	09 Aug 1977 - Succession
Dominica	17 Feb 1994 - Accession	17 Feb 1994 - Accession
Dominican Republic (the)	04 Jan 1978 - Accession	04 Jan 1978 - Accession
Ecuador	17 Aug 1955 - Accession	06 Mar 1969 - Accession
Egypt	22 May 1981 - Accession	22 May 1981 - Accession
El Salvador	28 Apr 1983 - Accession	28 Apr 1983 - Accession
Equatorial Guinea	07 Feb 1986 - Accession	07 Feb 1986 - Accession
Estonia	10 Apr 1997 - Accession	10 Apr 1997 - Accession
Ethiopia	10 Nov 1969 - Accession	10 Nov 1969 - Accession
Fiji	12 Jun 1972 - Succession	12 Jun 1972 - Succession
Finland	10 Oct 1968 - Accession	10 Oct 1968 - Accession
France	23 Jun 1954 - Ratification	03 Feb 1971 - Accession
Gabon	27 Apr 1964 - Accession	28 Aug 1973 - Accession
Gambia (the)	07 Sep 1966 - Succession	29 Sep 1967 - Accession
Georgia	09 Aug 1999 - Accession	09 Aug 1999 - Accession
Germany	01 Dec 1953 - Ratification	05 Nov 1969 - Accession
Ghana	18 Mar 1963 - Accession	30 Aug 1968 - Accession
Greece	05 Apr 1960 - Ratification	07 Aug 1968 - Accession
Guatemala	22 Sep 1983 - Accession	22 Sep 1983 - Accession
Guinea	28 Dec 1965 - Succession	16 May 1968 - Accession
Guinea-Bissau	11 Feb 1976 - Accession	11 Feb 1976 - Accession
Haiti	25 Sep 1984 - Accession	25 Sep 1984 - Accession
Holy See	15 Mar 1956 - Ratification	08 Jun 1967 - Accession
Honduras	23 Mar 1992 - Accession	23 Mar 1992 - Accession
Hungary	14 Mar 1989 - Accession	14 Mar 1989 - Accession
Iceland	30 Nov 1955 - Accession	26 Apr 1968 - Accession
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	28 Jul 1976 - Accession	28 Jul 1976 - Accession
Ireland	29 Nov 1956 - Accession	06 Nov 1968 - Accession
Israel	01 Oct 1954 - Ratification	14 Jun 1968 - Accession
Italy	15 Nov 1954 - Ratification	26 Jan 1972 - Accession
Jamaica	30 Jul 1964 - Succession	30 Oct 1980 - Accession
Japan	03 Oct 1981 - Accession	01 Jan 1982 - Accession
Kazakhstan	15 Jan 1999 - Accession	15 Jan 1999 - Accession
Kenya	16 May 1966 - Accession	13 Nov 1981 - Accession
Kyrgyzstan	08 Oct 1996 - Accession	08 Oct 1996 - Accession
Latvia	31 Jul 1997 - Accession	31 Jul 1997 - Accession
Lesotho	14 May 1981 - Accession	14 May 1981 - Accession
Liberia	15 Oct 1964 - Accession	27 Feb 1980 - Accession
Liechtenstein	08 Mar 1957 - Ratification	20 May 1968 - Accession
Lithuania	28 Apr 1997 - Accession	28 Apr 1997 - Accession
Luxembourg	23 Jul 1953 - Ratification	22 Apr 1971 - Accession
Madagascar	18 Dec 1967 - Accession
Malawi	10 Dec 1987 - Accession	10 Dec 1987 - Accession
Mali	02 Feb 1973 - Succession	02 Feb 1973 - Accession
Malta	17 Jun 1971 - Accession	15 Sep 1971 - Accession
Mauritania	05 May 1987 - Accession	05 May 1987 - Accession
Mexico	07 Jun 2000 - Accession	07 Jun 2000 - Accession
Monaco	18 May 1954 - Accession	16 June 2010 - Accession
Montenegro	10 Oct 2006 - Succession	10 Oct 2006 - Succession
Morocco	07 Nov 1956 - Succession	20 Apr 1971 - Accession
Mozambique	16 Dec 1983 - Accession	01 May 1989 - Accession
Namibia	17 Feb 1995 - Accession	17 Feb 1995 - Accession
Nauru	17 Jun 2011 - Accession	17 Jun 2011 - Accession
Netherlands (the)	03 May 1956 - Ratification	29 Nov 1968 - Accession
New Zealand	30 Jun 1960 - Accession	06 Aug 1973 - Accession
Nicaragua	28 Mar 1980 - Accession
Niger (the)	25 Aug 1961 - Succession	02 Feb 1970 - Accession
Nigeria	23 Oct 1967 - Accession	02 May 1968 - Accession
Norway	23 Mar 1953 - Ratification	28 Nov 1967 - Accession
Panama	02 Aug 1978 - Accession	02 Aug 1978 - Accession
Papua New Guinea	17 Jul 1986 - Accession	17 Jul 1986 - Accession
Paraguay	01 Apr 1970 - Accession	01 Apr 1970 - Accession
Peru	21 Dec 1964 - Accession	15 Sep 1983 - Accession
Philippines (the)	22 Jul 1981 - Accession	22 Jul 1981 - Accession
Poland	27 Sep 1991 - Accession	27 Sep 1991 - Accession
Portugal	22 Dec 1960 - Accession	13 Jul 1976 - Accession
Republic of Korea (the)	03 Dec 1992 - Accession	03 Dec 1992 - Accession
Republic of Moldova	31 Jan 2002 - Accession	31 Jan 2002 - Accession
Romania	07 Aug 1991 - Accession	07 Aug 1991 - Accession
Russian Federation (the)	02 Feb 1993 - Accession	02 Feb 1993 - Accession
Rwanda	03 Jan 1980 - Accession	03 Jan 1980 - Accession
Saint Kitts and Nevis	01 Feb 2002 - Accession
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	03 Nov 1993 - Accession	03 Nov 2003 - Accession
Samoa	21 Sep 1988 - Accession	29 Nov 1994 - Accession
Sao Tome and Principe	01 Feb 1978 - Accession	01 Feb 1978 - Accession
Senegal	02 May 1963 - Succession	03 Oct 1967 - Accession
Serbia	12 Mar 2001 - Succession	12 Mar 2001 - Succession
Seychelles	23 Apr 1980 - Accession	23 Apr 1980 - Accession
Sierra Leone	22 May 1981 - Accession	22 May 1981 - Accession
Slovakia	04 Feb 1993 - Succession	04 Feb 1993 - Succession
Slovenia	06 Jul 1992 - Succession	06 Jul 1992 - Succession
Solomon Islands	28 Feb 1995 - Accession	12 Apr 1995 - Accession
Somalia	10 Oct 1978 - Accession	10 Oct 1978 - Accession
South Africa	12 Jan 1996 - Accession	12 Jan 1996 - Accession
Spain	14 Aug 1978 - Accession	14 Aug 1978 - Accession
South Sudan	01 Oct 2018 - Accession	01 Oct 2018 - Accession
Sudan (the)	22 Feb 1974 - Accession	23 May 1974 - Accession
Suriname	29 Nov 1978 - Succession	29 Nov 1978 - Succession
Swaziland	14 Feb 2000 - Accession	28 Jan 1969 - Accession
Sweden	26 Oct 1954 - Ratification	04 Oct 1967 - Accession
Switzerland	21 Jan 1955 - Ratification	20 May 1968 - Accession
Tajikistan	07 Dec 1993 - Accession	07 Dec 1993 - Accession
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	18 Jan 1994 - Succession	18 Jan 1994 - Succession
Timor-Leste	07 May 2003 - Accession	07 May 2003 - Accession
Togo	27 Feb 1962 - Succession	01 Dec 1969 - Accession
Trinidad and Tobago	10 Nov 2000 - Accession	10 Nov 2000 - Accession
Tunisia	24 Oct 1957 - Succession	16 Oct 1968 - Accession
Turkey	03 Mar 1962 - Ratification	31 Jul 1968 - Accession
Turkmenistan	02 Mar 1998 - Accession	02 Mar 1998 - Accession
Tuvalu	07 Mar 1986 - Succession	07 Mar 1986 - Succession
Uganda	27 Sep 1976 - Accession	27 Sep 1976 - Accession
Ukraine	10 Jun 2002 - Accession	04 Apr 2002 - Accession
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)	11 Mar 1954 - Ratification	04 Sep 1968 - Accession
United Republic of Tanzania (the)	12 May 1964 - Accession	04 Sep 1968 - Accession
United States of America (the)		01 Nov 1968 - Accession
Uruguay	22 Sep 1970 - Accession	22 Sep 1970 - Accession
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)		19 Sep 1986 - Accession
Yemen	18 Jan 1980 - Accession	18 Jan 1980 - Accession
Zambia	24 Sep 1969 - Succession	24 Sep 1969 - Accession
Zimbabwe	25 Aug 1981 - Accession	25 Aug 1981 - Accession

Credit: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

Environmental/Climate-Driven Migration

When most think about refugees and asylum seekers, they immediately think of those who are fleeing conflict areas, areas that are war torn, or have particular discriminatory policies. However, with the increasing research surrounding the effects of global climate change, environmental and climatic refugees are becoming a burgeoning and important group of refugees. The relationship between environmental drivers and migration began to be explored in the 1980s by the scholars El-Hinnawi and Jacobson (Berchin et al., 2017; Mence & Parrinder, 2017). The policy issues surrounding climate refugees were not considered widely until around 2006, when the Maldives government drew attention to this group by calling a meeting (Biermann & Boas, 2008). Currently there are no legal avenues for climate refugees to achieve refugee status as there are for other types of refugees, and they are not protected by the 1951 Convention. Here again, as in Zetter’s (2007) research, labels and the perception of those labels become important: the implications of “refugee” versus “displaced person” (Berchin et al., 2017; Mence & Parrinder, 2017).

Many researchers highlight that there have not been many instances where climate change was the only reason for a refugee to migrate, and highlights a few examples from Pacific Islands (Podesta, 2019; Mence & Parrinder, 2017). The fact that environmental and climate change related migration, like with all types of migration,  likely will have multiple causes makes the attempts to define it all the more difficult, and thus complicates the potential applications to policy. How do environmental migrants differ from climate change migrants? Should one group be considered “refugees” over the other?

Note: Registered students can access the readings in Canvas by clicking on the Library Resources link.

Refugees and asylum seekers are often faced with the same factors and decisions as other migrants when deciding if, when, and where to migrate. As with any decision to leave a place, it is multi-faceted and complex and deals with a combination of push and pull factors at their origin, destination, and intermediary locations (Czaika, 2016; McAuliffe, 2017; Hatton & Monoley, 2017). While this section cannot enumerate all of the many facets of the decision making process that refugees and asylum seekers go through, this lesson hopes to provide a cross section of research to allow you to begin to think critically about the multi-faceted decisions of these migrants.

Czaika (2016) reminds us that in addition to taking into account the current situation, potential refugees and asylum seekers must also take into account “...other social and economic aspects as well as the ‘opportunity costs’ of leaving behind and potentially losing their belongings...and beloved ones.” While refugees and asylum seekers in Australia often cited a combination of security and non-security related issues contributing to their decision to migrate, migrants also left in search of better educational facilities, better health service, and more economic opportunities, and chose Australia because of Australia’s reputation for good hospitality towards asylum seekers (McAuliffe, 2017). Other cited attributes of desirable locations for asylum seekers include a peaceful locale, higher incomes, and employment opportunities (Hatton and Moloney, 2017). An interesting point McAuliffe's (2017) research notes is that asylum seekers in Australia cited “a significant security threat or incident triggered their departure.” Those who are younger and perhaps of working age may also be more inclined to migrate (Czaika, 2016).

As with international migrants, Czaika (2016) also finds that networks are also important in decision making and can make the decision to move easier, especially in helping to decide where to migrate. Social media has increased the ability to create networks that provide information on host nations and experiences of other migrants to help inform refugee and asylum seeker decisions, though access to this social media networking capability varies geographically with some African migrants possibly having a reduced access to such capabilities (Merisalo & Jauhiainen, 2021; Dekker et al., 2018). Those with access; however, identified that social media and smartphones were helpful in route planning, learning about access to countries, choosing a destination, and keeping in touch with those at a country of origin (Dekker et al., 2018). This, however, is a rosy view of social media and smartphones—it does have its pitfalls, as it can be rife with misinformation and an ability to be tracked, they also require internet connection (or mobile service), a battery, and a mechanism for charging said battery (Dekker et al., 2018). Despite the pitfalls, social media, the internet, and smartphones do influence refugee and asylum seekers before and during their travel about where they should go and how to get where they are going. Recall that different countries have different procedures for determining whether or not an asylum seeker meets the definition of a refugee, and these networks help provide insight into which countries may be more or less stringent, potentially influencing decision making.

Distance is also a factor in a migrant’s decision making, especially if there is an intention to return home. Thus, neighboring countries often receive many refugees and often “shoulder a disproportionate burden” over other nations (Czaika, 2016). That, however, isn’t to say that this is always the case. Some migrants use these neighboring countries as springboards to locations further away, as evidenced Ludwig’s (2013) work with Liberian refugees in the United States, who sometimes used refugee camps in neighboring countries as an intermediate location to gain refugee status elsewhere. In addition, refugees may also choose a host nation based on the presence of a social network: friends, family, etc. At times, these migrants may choose to remain in a transit location because of the presence of known family and friends who can help support (Simich et al., 2003). The decisions these refugees make throughout their journey also can help speak to their experiences in their host nation, which is the focus of the next section.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers for better or worse have made the decision to leave their country of origin and move to their destination country (whether this is a distant destination or a neighboring country, and includes settling in refugee camps). This decision brings with it a variety of experiences, and these experiences are often unique to the individual and unique to their host nation. Perceptions of experiences in host nations are often included in the decision making process above. This section does not wish to diminish the individuality of those refugee and asylum seeker experiences, but merely to provide some insight into general experiences of these individuals and provide a cross section of the multidisciplinary research that has been conducted in this vein.

As we have discussed extensively in this course, discourse and labels matter, and the terms “refugee” and “asylum seeker” bring with it benefits and drawbacks both to an individual’s identity and their experiences in their host countries. The benefits of the legal term “refugee” include that the individual cannot be returned to their country of origin if their life is in danger, and in the United States many refugees have access to national programs, such as food stamps and worker’s permit, to help them get settled (Ludwig, 2013).

Refugees and asylum seekers are typically already under stress; however, they also experience “anxiety and depression” (Strang & Quinn, 2019). While these stressors differ from other immigrants, some may be similar, such as the potential of difficulty communicating due to different language or culture. Even the label “refugee” can be difficult, due to the unintended drawbacks that come with the label's status. Refugees can be stigmatized at times, especially as they can be viewed as “helpless,” “dependent,” and possibly a “resource drain” (Ludwig, 2013). Ludwig (2013), however, recognizes that this stigma may differ by a refugee’s country of origin, finding that “Liberians and other Black” refugees are often seen as an “economic burden.” This intolerance is not unique to Liberians and other Black refugees in the United States, but has also been found with Syrian Refugees in Lebanon, who experienced “multilevel intolerance,” including but not limited to perceived prejudice, stereotypes, perceived discrimination, and scapegoating (Kheireddine et al., 2020; Strang & Quinn, 2019). The label of “refugee” can also make it difficult to integrate into their host country’s society from a variety of perspectives: socially and economically. They struggle with the question: When is it ok to stop being called a refugee? (Ludwig, 2013) Which also begs the question: Is this only the decision of the refugee?

These generalized trends of the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers does not take into account that these experiences often also differ by gender. While this strand of refugee experiences has not been widely researched, the research that has been conducted does indicate that more research should be conducted. Strang and Quinn (2019) researched the experiences of single Afghan and Iranian men in Scotland. Their research, complementing Robertshaw et al.’s (2017) research demonstrating that female refugees were able to share their emotions more freely with friends; while the male refugees in Strang and Quinn’s (2019) research had to redefine their identity to allow them to emotionally connect.

These labels the refugees and asylum seekers are given, are not just present to them, but also to immigrants: both authorized and unauthorized. Media (including social media and news programs) often play a part in how members of the host nation view these groups. Murray and Marx (2013) noted in their research from participants along the U.S.-Mexico border region that there are differences in how individuals in host nations view threats associated with an immigrant based on the label they are provided, with unauthorized immigrants being seen as being a larger perceived threat to overall welfare than authorized immigrants. While threat perception towards authorized and unauthorized immigrants was impacted by generational differences, this effect does not appear in attitudes towards refugees, where participants were overall positive about refugee resettlement programs (Murray & Marx, 2013).

This positivity that Murry and Marx (2013) found in the United States towards refugees and asylum seekers is not shared worldwide, with researchers finding that nations in the European Union are generally less positive (Crawley et al., 2019). A poll from 2016 shows that many people in European Union countries believe that refugees will increase terrorism and be a burden on the country (Wike et al., 2016). In addition, scale (there’s that word again) is also important here. Variations in attitudes also can vary regionally and even between rural and urban areas, as evidenced by Crawley et al.’s (2019) work denoting regional differences in attitudes towards asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, as well as more positive attitudes in urban versus rural areas of the UK.

Much of the research surrounding host nation attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers, as with other immigrants, identifies the importance of “intergroup contact” and “reciprocity” to create positive interactions and attitudes, where individuals from the host nation and refugees meet and interact (Crawley et al., 2019; Strang & Quinn, 2019). While this “intergroup contact” can be helpful in attitudes towards refugees in their host nations, it is also important to keep in mind the refugee’s network: friends, family, and/or the existence of communities with cultural similarities, as they can be an incredibly important source of support for refugees. If refugees are placed in areas where they have no support, they may make the decision to take on additional hardships and move to another place, possibly even within the host country, where they would have access to such a support network. This was found to be true of refugees in Canada, who even chose to stay in transit locations or migrate again to be closer to a support network (Simich et al., 2003). While there may be factors that compel a refugee or asylum seeker to stay in a transit point, there are also factors that may compel refugees to continue their journey to secondary destinations. One such study looking at Eritrean asylum seekers in Italy found that asylum seekers may decide to continue to secondary destinations due to “National differences in the quality of the reception system, in welfare policies, and in labour market opportunities” (Brekke & Brochmann, 2014).

Moral of the research review: the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees are varied and complex. They vary by the individual, by the group, by the origin, by the destination, by the individuals and groups in the destination, by the policies of the destination, and the list could go on forever. However, as evidenced by this section, there is a large body of research into the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers, how to potentially improve their experiences, and what policies influence those experiences.

In the previous lesson, we investigated security issues surrounding migrants: internal and international. While refugees and asylum seekers are considered international migrants as well, there are some unique considerations that surround refugees and asylum seekers, especially given the conditions surrounding their migration and the legal protections afforded them upon successful completion of the refugee process. This section is not meant to be an all encompassing review of the literature surrounding security and refugees and asylum seekers, but a snapshot.

Security Threats to Refugee and Asylum Seekers

Refugees and asylum seekers are facing real threats in their points of origin that directly threaten their lives and livelihoods. They are often faced with a variety of security threats while they are leaving their points of origin, while in transit, and even at times when they reach their destinations. We discussed in the previous sections the decisions of refugees and asylum seekers to seek a secondary destination to find better support, which also includes better security support and safety (Loescher, 2002). Some refugees face sexual abuse, robbery, resource availability, and possibly death among many threats (Loescher, 2002). These security threats are rarely discussed, especially in countries that neighbor the states refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing from; more often than not, what is reported are the potential/alleged security threats generated by refugees and asylum seekers (Loescher, 2002)

“Security Threats” of Refugee and Asylum Seekers

The term security threats was placed in quotations in the title of this section purposefully.  That is not to say that there are no security threats caused by the presence of refugees and asylum seekers, but in some cases they are exaggerated.

Loescher (2002) identifies direct and indirect threats and perceived threats of refugees and asylum seekers. There are some direct security threats that destination countries may face by accepting refugees and asylum seekers into their countries; however, a lot of these threats are felt by countries that neighbor or are in close proximity to the countries of origin.  Loescher (2002) discusses “spillover conflict,” where conflicts do not stop at the border but follow the refugees to their destinations and the use of refugee camps by “combatants” posing as refugees. There are also perceived indirect threats that Loescher (2002) indicates, such as the fear of potential ethnic conflict due to protracted refugee presence and the thought that refugees and asylum seekers bring threats of terrorism with them. Alderman (2002) however notes that “...there is virtually no evidence linking global terrorism with refugees,” especially in the context of refugees seeking acceptance in Canada and the United states. What Alderman (2002) means is that terrorists are not likely to use the refugee process, as it requires providing a significant amount of information, increasing the risk of exposing terrorists.

Scenario

You are a humanitarian analyst covering the ongoing conflicts surrounding Uganda. You are provided with the following three maps:

• Refugees and asylum seekers - Uganda as of 01 July 2016 (PDF)
• Refugees and asylum seekers - Uganda as of 01 April 2017 (PDF)
• Refugees and asylum seekers - Uganda as of 31 July 2021 (PDF)

and the following article:

• Uganda stands out in refugees hospitality - Africa Renewal (PDF) with some basic information on Uganda’s refugee policies.

Registered students can use the following link to access an interactive set of the Refugee and Asylum Seekers maps.

Using the three maps and the article provided above, you must write a written brief for a person going to Uganda to make assessments on what support if any your organization can provide to help the Uganda refugee response efforts. 

Assignment Requirements

Within your written brief, you must provide the deployer with:

• What area of Uganda you think would benefit most from additional support, if any. This assessment should be supported by your assessments of:
  • How the Refugee situation has changed in Uganda over time (in terms of total numbers, spatial distribution, and source countries).
  • Any spatial patterns to refugee settlement within Uganda.
  • Your understanding of the refugee situation in Uganda.

Your brief should:

• Be no longer than two pages (250-500 words,) not including any ancillary graphs, maps, and figures.
• Follow the basic rules for written briefs provided in the “Writing a Brief” section of lesson 3, including putting your bottom line up front.
  • Hint: Your main point should be the first sentence of your first paragraph. All of the information that follows should support that main point, in decreasing order of importance.
• Include citations

Summary

In this lesson we continued our discussion on mobility by discussing a particular group of migrants: refugees and asylum seekers. In addition to diving into the particular definitions of these migrants and whether or not these definitions of these migrants should be adaptable to global changes, we consider their mobility and decision making during their journeys, as well as their experiences in their host nations. Finally, we close by considering the security threats to refugees and asylum seekers and potentially posed by.

Final Tasks