January 2023 – Refugee Educational Advancement Lab (REAL)

By: Jacqui Hatch 1/27/23

Peer reviewed by REAL members

Throughout time, people have fled their home countries due to the fear of persecution, political and economic instability, armed conflicts, and natural disasters. These experiences show both traumatic experiences during flight, in displacement, and upon resettlement as well as displaced populations’ resilience and agency. The literature on forced migration presents a myriad of challenges faced by those displaced, including the lack of educational opportunities in their new host country, yet it is not the firsthand accounts of these migrant communities that are being shared. Rather than amplifying the voices of those displaced, the responsibility of telling these stories and conducting research has been placed in the hands of scholars in the Global North, most of whom have never experienced displacement.

Looking to change this narrative, the University of Oxford’s Forced Migration Review (FMR), an online journal in partnership with the Local Engagement Refugee Research Network (LERRN) launched a pilot mentorship program designed to promote the inclusion of authors with forced migration backgrounds from the Global South. To improve access to peer-reviewed journals for researchers who have experienced displacement, FMR’s issue #70 ‘Knowledge, voice and power’ explores issues of representation, influence, privilege, discrimination, and access for refugee scholarship in publication. Per the program mentees, each of these topics serve as key issues and lack visibility vital for systemic change.

On September 28th, 2022, FMR and LERRN hosted a virtual panel with several program mentees who shared not only their interests in forced migration research but also their own trials in access to publish their research. The panelists included academics, scholars, and practitioners (e.g., co-founders of nonprofit organizations, risk strategists and those appealing to local government policies). All agreed that the most predominant barrier to publishing their research is adequate funding and the implicit requirement of credibility.

This was especially true for panelist Rossmary D. Marquez-Lameda, a Refugee Health Researcher and PhD candidate studying Behavioral Health at Indiana University. In reflecting on her research regarding cases of healthcare access for Venezuelan refugees in Colombia, she explained, “often your perspective is overlooked when you do not have credibility. [A funding agency] wants metrics, but [it] does not always acknowledge that there are factors related to prejudice and discrimination that will affect outcomes.” While Marquez-Lameda admits she has more success as a doctoral candidate attending a U.S. university than her colleagues in Latin America, she recognizes the challenges impeding opportunities to gain credibility. “Sometimes you read these funding announcements and you think they were written for the North.” Recognizing that there is still a long road ahead until access to publishing research for displaced people is normalized, she suggests that the best way to mitigate these challenges is through creating meaningful connections in the field. “Research networks are a great place to start. They help connect academics conducting similar research and provide opportunities to co-author, despite geographics.”

Noor Ullah, who previously served as a Youth Researcher on Voices of Refugee Youth, a project exploring the impact of post-secondary and higher education for refugees in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, described a parallel sentiment regarding issues with credibility. There is a colossal issue with what he described as impossible visa and permit requirements. Noting the clear hierarchy within Pakistani universities, documentation makes it particularly difficult to establish one’s position as a researcher. Additionally, he noted the hostility towards young refugee students in local research cultures. “Research supervisors often act as gatekeepers, determining what can or cannot be published and imposing their own perspectives on research papers. This can result in silencing of refugees’ perspectives in academia.” Among just one of his many suggestions, policy makers must prioritize funding for refugee education, increasing research capacity.

On par with the challenges of credibility for refugee scholars and researchers is the task of establishing identity, a question that has led to much exploration, and at times torment for Aleksejs Ivashuk, representing the Apatride Network, an organization connecting stateless people with the European Union. Ivashuk stated, “I have, and will always, identify as a stateless person but being stateless is not my identity.” In sharing his family’s journey of leaving the Soviet Union after its collapse, he addressed the core issues of being a stateless person. “Stateless people don’t have rights to have rights.” This, compounded with the mass number of stateless individuals, 10 million globally, and nearly 1.5 million in the EU alone, causes a major lack of awareness of who and where stateless people are globally (Berthon, et al., 2022, p. 13). With numbers so substantial, how do we move forward? In sharing his belief on amplifying displaced voices in the political arena, Ivashuk shared, “voices of stateless actors need to be treated as players in discussion, not variables in those discussions. We are not chess pieces.” While the dialogue is essential, there are more explicit factors to be addressed. Ivashuk affirms that racism, state obstruction, misinformation, and any other forms of discrimination need to be exposed through research to end statelessness. “We have a choice to exploit the barriers that restrict the rights affecting the communities to which we belong and challenge the policy makers through our research.”

While each panelists’ pathway to authorship is varied and complex, the key question to be addressed remains “How do we localize research?” It is the same question that James Milner, the Project Director of LERRN, aims to address in the mentoring program. “We want [this program] to act as a place of social cohesion and move away from tokenizing inclusion.” But avoiding tokenization goes beyond just solidarity among those who have experienced displacement. Olivia Berthon, the Deputy Editor of FRM, echoes these sentiments. “We aim to practice what we preach by offering the publication in six languages and are working on procuring resources for additional translations in the hopes to localize [research] contributions.” As stated by panelist Bahati Kanyamanza, the Director of Partnerships for Asylum Access, “local integration is a gradual process with legal, economic, social, and cultural considerations, demanding action from both the individual and receiving society. People in displaced situations must be willing to take on leadership roles and figureheads must be willing to relinquish power. Right now [this] seems near impossible, but there is hope.”

Perhaps the discussion leaves its panelists and attendees with more questions than answers. But to reiterate Kanyamanza, there is hope in access to research for displaced people. Through the panelists’ contributions we see multiple commitments to change. Currently, there are tireless efforts being made to mitigate the obstacles for refugees, stateless people in their access to research. Amplifying refugee voices and their research will create more pathways for future researchers, promoting equity, authorship, and the stories of the Global South.

References

Berthon, O., Ivashuk, A., Kanyamanza, B., Marquez-Lameda, R. D., Milner, J., Ullah, N. “Forced Migration Review- 70, Knowledge, Voice, Power, exploring issues of representation, influence, privilege, access and discrimination.” September 28, 2022. Virtual. Panel Discussion.

Berthon, O., Ivashuk, A., Kanyamanza, B., Marquez-Lameda, R. D., Milner, J., Ullah, N. (September 2022). Forced Migration Review: Knowledge, voice and power: Issue #70. PP 10,12-13. https://www.fmreview.org/sites/fmr/files/FMRdownloads/en/issue70/magazine.pdf

By: Jessica Crist and Bernhard Streitwieser

Peer reviewed by REAL members

On December 13th, two REAL members attended an event at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) in Washington, DC on the European Union’s (EU) Temporary Protection Directive (TPD), an initiative set into motion by the EU on March 4th, 2022 in response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis. The TPD was established in 2001. However, it was not used until the war in Ukraine set off an avalanche of human displacement. Monique Pariat, Director General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission, discussed this initiative with MPI Director of International Programs, Meghan Benton. Understanding the EU’s initiative provides valuable lessons to U.S. policymakers who currently struggle to reform migration policy, especially for Central American migrants.

Background

All available figures today attest to an unrelenting rise in global human displacement.

Displacement figures are the highest since World War II. In 2015, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated a global migrant count of 249 million. Only five years later, this estimate grew to 281 million, which is equivalent to the entire U.S. population in 2000. This was a 3.37 to 3.60 percentage increase in statelessness in just five years: 32 million more people losing everything. For context: Canada’s population of 36 million is only slightly larger. Imagine nearly every Canadian losing their home, giving up their livelihood, leaving loved ones behind, and being stripped of their identity.

Among the many factors that contribute to global statelessness – war, civil strife, gang violence, ecological disaster, corruption, and religious and social intolerance – the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August of 2021 and the unprovoked Russian military invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022 played prominent roles. The resulting sudden population influxes often stress, and potentially limit, the available systemic resources that governments, civil societies, and institutions have to respond. These disruptions also often trigger negative sentiment, sometimes violent, towards migrants.

Those seeking asylum in the U.S. in recent years were met with nationalist policies attempting to halt migration by separating children from their parents or imposing quotas under the guise of prolonged public health crises (Title 42). The continuing migration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border and the political stalemate regarding Title 42 exemplify the need for more open and welcoming migration policies. The perception of control created by TPD has swayed EU public opinion to be more welcoming toward migrants. Additionally, the social and financial benefits provided to migrants through TPD have allowed migrants to better integrate into EU society. Moving forward, existing positive and widely-accepted response models must be explored and cultivated into practice.

The Potential Impact of the Temporary Protection Directive on U.S. Policy

The TPD is authorized annually and has been extended through March of 2024 because the Ukrainian crisis continues. Pariat explained that the TPD is not only a “massive investment by the EU” regarding humane migrant reception, but also an equally important investment in demonstrating orderly and successful migration management to all citizens. In the U.S. and in the EU there are some similarities in the reasoning behind the asylum debate. However, the circumstances are distinct: Ukrainian refugees flee to the EU to escape war, while Central American migrants flee to the U.S. to escape poverty and crime. Even so, adopting policies similar to TPD could improve U.S. public opinion on migrants, control chaos at the border, and provide essential services to incoming migrants.

TPD created a perception of order for EU citizens. MPI director Dr. Andrew Selee explained “the perception of order and control gives it credibility; it’s not so much about the money….Perception is the key.” Credibility is important to counterbalance anti-immigration sentiment, which also includes accusing their political opponents’ efforts as exacerbating what they see as gross government misspending.

Rising nationalism in the U.S. has influenced attacks on the current government and pushed the financial responsibility for migrants onto liberal-leaning states. The “migrant buses,” which forced migrants from the southern border to northern states on frigid Christmas Eve, is only the most recent egregious example. The TPD’s financial and political success is, in part, owed to its impression of order and control, which garners public support for migrants. The U.S. could adopt similar policies to reform their migration system. Doing so would foster a more inclusive public attitude toward incoming migrants.

The social and financial benefits provided to Ukrainian migrants by TPD also aid in the wider integration process. TPD gives refugees access to social benefits, education, economic mobility, and medical care. Pariat explained that TPD creates a “talent pool,” aiming to match Ukrainian migrants with labor market shortages in their host country. As there is no U.S. equivalent for U.S.-Mexico border migrants, those who are bused to various U.S. cities receive humanitarian relief from mutual aid groups, churches, and civilian volunteers. By crafting an integration policy comparable to the TPD, the U.S. government could support essential migrant services rather than rely on local efforts and civilian funds. Public perception would be improved by the control and organization demonstrated by the policy.

The U.S. Temporary Protective Status and the EU Temporary Protection Directive

The U.S. government’s Temporary Protective Status (TPS) policy allows migrant populations from certain countries to stay in the U.S. legally while seeking asylum. However, TPS does not include a pathway to permanent residency. Similar to the EU’s TPD, in the U.S. the TPS policy must continue to be renewed. The TPS program in the U.S. can be renewed for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time, depending on the situation in the designated country. TPS allows beneficiaries to apply for a work permit, but, in contrast to Europe’s TPD, does not award social benefits. This major shortcoming continues to leave most migrants in economic precarity. The goal of the TPD is to integrate Ukrainian migrants into EU society through essential service provisions, while TPS is designed to be temporary in nature and only prevents the immediate deportation of those temporarily approved migrants.

Can the U.S. Emulate the EU’s TPD?

The U.S. government stands to learn from the EU’s TPD by adopting similar policies and contextualizing them to create an organized process supporting humane and orderly migration at the southern border. This would concurrently aid in building positive public reception and inclusion of migrants. Regarding the current discourse on the termination of Title 42 and the temporary nature of TPS, the U.S. urgently needs to attain a credible and organized immigration plan that will ease the strain on the migration system and align the two political parties on the best and most humane approach. Through lowered tensions and an assured orderly process that can be respectable to shelter seekers and also to the hosting communities along the border and further in the country, humanity may yet prevail. The EU’s TPD serves as a powerful next-generation model that U.S. policymakers should think about trying to leverage if they hope to more effectively address migration and humanitarian relief.

Month: January 2023

Pathways through Publishing: Mentorship in Authorship for Refugee Scholars of the Global South

The Temporary Protection Directive – a Model for Responding to Refugee Crises?