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.
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.
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
- 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"
- 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.
- Keep them out
- If they come send them back
- 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.
