Thursday, 10 September 2015

The dublin agreement and why it is fundamentally wrong


The Dublin agreement is getting much press these days, and as with many topics in the ongoing migration and refugee debate this too is one subject to imprecise or lack of knowledge.


This means, in fact, that much conversation either derails or is stopped at that barrier - simply because it is not understood in practice. And by that I refer not so much to the legal elements of it, as of how it affects policy implementation in practice.


What is the Dublin agreement?
The Dublin agreement is a pan-European agreement on Asylum seekers. The intention of the agreement is in theory to ensure that those asylum seekers that have the right of protection as a refugee under the refugee convention will be provided that status more quickly, while those who do not will be processed only once, and not have the ability to apply and re-apply to many different countries inside of the Schengen zone. This is practically done through fingerprint collection and deportation back to the original country of registration if found by police or authorities in another European country.


Intention:
The intention is primarily to make the asylum process more efficient and less resource heavy, as people will only apply once inside Schengen. Secondly it is to make the seperation of "real refugees" from "mere migrants" more effective, as Europe has effectively decided that we don't want "migrants" and we will tolerate refugees only because it seems to be the right thing to do.


Sidebar:
  • First and foremost we must recognise one thing - that the very existance and justification of the Dublin agreement is based upon the presumption that some reasons to migrate we are fine with (people fleeing persecution according to the conventions) and others we don't like (people escaping from their place of birth of home country because they are unable to build the life they dream of there, for social, economic or other reasons). Personally I have deep misgiving about this antiquated world view, I do not see fleeing from persecution as inherently more of a right than to migrate freely upon the earth that was created by forces of nature, not by states mankind. But I will leave this personal opinion out of this specific post.



Case 1: Help, my name is Miran and I am a refugee from Syria
Hi Miran. The main thinking behind the agreement is that you have the right in fact to escape from Syria to (basically anywhere) where you are not persecuted. You are desperate (right?) and so should be happy with any life that does not include persecution or immediate death by Mr. Assad or ISIL. Therefore, f. ex. Living 10-15 years in a refugee camp locked up, without the possibility to build a life is something you should be grateful for.

If you think I am making this up, I would suggest you to read a bit about Somalis living in Dadaab for decades f. ex.

Picture Getty Images


Therefore, it should not matter to you where you are granted asylum, where you flee to - because, after all - you should be grateful you are alive at all, right? So from a European perspective "any country will do" - and in fact the country that will do is the country you enter into first (a map of Europe will then tell you that physically speaking that explains where people enter.

File:Dublin Regulation.svg

Of course we have airplanes, right? Why don't people just fly to the country they want and apply to asylum there? Because without a visa you cannot buy a ticket, and without a ticket you cannot fly. So unless you are renting an airplane (and believe it or not, some people choose this for that very reason) you can only arrive where you can get physically with your own two feet (or in a boat, effectively).


In practice therefore, my dear Miran, you will arrive to "the country he happens to get to" (read: Greece, Italy, Spain) and applies for asylum there. In fact, you will give your fingerprints for that, and have no choice but to do so. Either you apply for asylum where you entered Schengen (illegally!) or you will be immediately deported - as an illegal immigrant. Moving on? Not on our watch.


Case answer: If you are a "real" refugee you will be registered where you enter Schengen and that is where you will apply to asylum. After all, you should be grateful to be alive and your imagination that you are somehow allowed to shape or influence your life beyond your heart still beating should not concern you. Welcome to Europe, btw the land of brotherhood, equality for the law and brotherhood (eh… I didn't mean for you!)

---

Case 2: Help, my name is Adamou and I am escaping from poverty and desperation in Niger

Here our Dublin agreement has found it's "real target". First of all, my dear friend Adamou, poverty is no reason at all for you to escape. We are very sorry that you are poor but, really, that is none of our concern. Yes, I hear you say there is Boko Haram in your country, but unless you can prove that they are targeting you specifically, that is just something you will have to "live with". From what we know they haven't reached your village yet, so really you are quite safe. Yes, you may be afraid for your life, but really, you should stay where you are.


Boko Haram fighters
Picture from BBC


Previously you would perhaps thing of applying for asylum in Italy, and, if rejected, would move to France and do the same. Then to the Netherlands etc. In fact, it was quite common for "bounty hunters like you" to "shop around" (more accurately travel around in constant search for asylum), as you were rejected by one country and then the next. European countries found that this was no good - for two reasons
  1. The same people were taking up a lot of resources (immigration departments as well as resources of hosting people) in several countries with "having the right to protection"
  2. These people (that's you Adamou) shouldn't be here anyway! "They are migrants" you might hear people say with a voice that sounds like they are describing a vicious disease, not human beings.
The solution was that we had to "separate the real refguees from the migrants" and therefore we make sure that once you have applied (read: forced to give your fingerprints) in one European country, that's it - you will never have the chance to apply again in another. This would ensure these "migrants" stay at home in the first place, less resource waste and if they come we can deport them back, faster than you can say "Help, I am in Europe, get me out of here".




In fact it was mainly Northern European countries, always the highlight of human civilization (yes, you are supposed to hear the sarcasm in my voice here) who would pay for this system and it would be implemented through Frontex on the borders of Schengen.

  1.     Keep them out
  2.     If they come send them back
  3.     If they absolutely have to come, well - ok they get one chance where they arrived 
Case answer: If you dear Adamou are not a "real" refugee, you will anyway be registered where you entered Schengen, and you should be grateful that we didn't bomb the boat you came on (we are still considering that option, by the way). Yes, you had your chance to apply, but now the fun is over. Oh you think you can explain your case again? No my friend, we have your fingerprints - it's over for you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so what happened to this marvelous system?

After a while, countries on the outskirts of Schengen realised that they were the only ones taking real numbers of asylum seekers as by the process. As they were getting paid based on the number of fingerprints etc. it made a lot sense to register people short term, but long term that led to issues. So they started letting people through. "Here's 50 EUR, take a train to the next country, we wont say anything and they can take care of you." Ever wonder why France kept closing their border to Italy? "Merde! These Italians are just not doing their job properly! They should be dealing with their own deportations".

Picture by Deutsche Welle

Let's speak again to our migrant from Niger, Adamou. European countries were processing asylum claims from refugees based on the same conventions - however, their implementation (and therefore interpretation) in national law was vastly different. So of course, being on a quest to build your life, you would find out which country had the most lenient interpretation of persecution by Boko Haram. How? Information is worth it's weight in gold my friend. And this information can be bought, with a high degree of accuracy in a country called…. Libya.

Wait a minute, I hear you say - what about the government of Libya…? Ah you mean the one that we removed with NATOs bombers to leave a country EVEN worse of for the popultation than under Gadaffi (that's quite a feat, you wouldnt think it possible, but we managed…). Yeah, well "that" government isnt really governing much.

Picture: USA Today

For smugglers this system is fantastic. I mean the Schengen agreement and European asylum policies are almost as profitable as the US war on drugs in Central and South America is for the drug cartels. And the good they are importing is much better - it pays BEFORE it's delivered, and if it doesnt arrive, it's "just another migrant" in the statistics books. We humans relate with emotion to individuals dying, but with numbness to thousands and millions.


For our Syrian this system means something else. As a refugee you would have the same rights as the population of that country. Sure, but the thing is, Europeans will be the first to know that having "rights" as a Swede is different than having "rights" as Greek. Sure, the passports have that same beautiful "Citizen of the European Union" stuff, but the refugee does NOT become a citizen of the European Union. He becomes a refugee in that country only. So while a Greek (f. ex.) has rights both in Greece, as well as in Europe as a European citizen, the Syrian will have only rights in Greece. Even if granted legal stay, and possible even the right to work (isnt it nice to have the "right" to work - especially in our lovely continent with all its opportunities?) that right is ONLY for Greece. So therefore, you better inform yourself about European countries BEFORE you let your fingerprints be taken. It matters a lot if they are taken in Greece, Hungary, Italy, France, Denmark or Sweden. Yes, it does.
 
"But come on, shouldnt you be happy just to be alive? If you are not careful we will send you back to Syria you know! Anywhere will do."

 ------

In simple terms the Dublin agreement means there are some common governing factors, but the real human issues at hand are not common, f. ex.
 
  •     Interpretation of refugee and human rights conventions - meaning difference in chance of getting asylum
  •     Rights as a refugee in the European countries differs
  •     Possibilities of family reunion (perhaps you didnt bring your pregnant wife on the boat over to Italy, because you didnt want her to die? Well, be careful where that boat ends up because you may or may not have the chance to bring her with you later)
Ultimately you have a complete lack of a common system, despite its pretty words. Perhaps refugees and migrants dont "shop around" anymore. But instead we have created the most inhumane and growing market for trafficking and people smugglers seen in history. It is our policies that is leading to the people dying. It is our policies that is leading to the collapse in our own systems. It is our system that should make us stay awake at night.