Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:34 am
Time: 3:34 am
Results for migration enforcement
5 results foundAuthor: Newland, Kathleen Title: Irregular Maritime Migration in the Bay of Bengal: The Challenges of Protection, Management, and Cooperation Summary: In recent decades, maritime migration in Asia has become increasingly contentious, as refugees and irregular migrants traversing the region by sea complicate the attempts of governments in the Asia-Pacific region to control their borders, regulate immigration, and fulfill their obligations under international law. In the spring of 2015, irregular maritime migration across the Bay of Bengal to Southeast Asia entered a period of crisis as a wave of migrants and refugees crossed or attempted to cross the Bay of Bengal to reach Southeast Asia. The discovery in April and May 2015 of smuggler camps on both sides of the Thailand-Malaysia border showed the critical dangers that attend the journey. At the center of the migration crisis is the exodus of stateless Muslims from western Myanmar (and in some cases, Bangladesh), mingled with Bangladeshi migrants seeking work opportunities in the wealthier countries of the region. Members of the Muslim minority, known as the Rohingya, have suffered extreme poverty and discrimination since the end of British colonial rule and establishment of the modern state of Myanmar. Communal violence between the Rohingya and Buddhists in Myanmar's Rakhine state flared in 2012, resulting in the flight of Rohingya to neighboring Bangladesh, where at least 200,000 remain. Tens of thousands of others embarked on irregular maritime journeys from Bay of Bengal ports in Myanmar and Bangladesh. This MPI-International Organization for Migration (IOM) Issue in Brief attempts to put the crisis of 2015 into context, providing an overview of the routes and patterns of migration, the development of migration out of Myanmar's Rakhine state over the past few years and how policy responses to it have assigned priority to the protection of migrants and refugees, to the management of the maritime flows and to cooperation on migration with countries in the region and beyond. The brief concludes with several recommendations, and a consideration of what recent history has to teach us about responses to maritime migration crises. Details: Bangkok and Washington, DC: International Organization for Migration and Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue in Brief, Issue No. 13: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/irregular-maritime-migration-bay-bengal-challenges-protection-management-and-cooperation Year: 2015 Country: Asia URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/irregular-maritime-migration-bay-bengal-challenges-protection-management-and-cooperation Shelf Number: 136406 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman SmugglingImmigrantsImmigrationMigrantsMigration EnforcementRefugees |
Author: Baldo, Suliman Title: Border Control from Hell: How EU's migration partnership legitimizes Sudan's "militia state" Summary: Large-scale migration to Europe has precipitated a paradigm shift in relations between the European Union (EU) and the government of Sudan, and closer ties between both entities. This new partnership has resulted in the EU disbursing millions of euros to the Sudanese government for technical equipment and training efforts geared toward stopping the flow to Europe of migrants from Sudan and those from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa who come through Sudan. The EU's action plan will involve building the capacities of Sudan's security and law enforcement agencies, including a paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has been branded as Sudan's primary "border force." The EU will assist the RSF and other relevant agencies with the construction of two camps with detention facilities for migrants. The EU will also equip these Sudanese border forces with cameras, scanners, and electronic servers for registering refugees. There are legitimate concerns with these plans. Much of the EU-funded training and equipment is dual-use. The equipment that enables identification and registration of migrants will also reinforce the surveillance capabilities of a Sudanese government that has violently suppressed Sudanese citizens for the past 28 years. Sudan's strategy for stopping migrant flows on behalf of Europe involves a ruthless crackdown by the RSF on migrants within Sudan. Dogged by persistent armed uprisings led by opponents protesting chronic inequalities in the distribution of national wealth and political power in its periphery regions, the Sudanese government has always relied on a plethora of militia groups to counter insurgencies. The RSF is one of these militia groups. It evolved from the disparate Janjaweed militias that carried out the genocidal counterinsurgency policy of the Sudanese regime in Darfur that began in 2003. However, in its functions and evolution, the RSF differs significantly from other militia groups employed by the government. The RSF first evolved from a strike force deployed against insurgents in Darfur into a national counterinsurgency force under the operational command of Sudan's National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) that was tasked with fighting the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army-North (SPLM/A-N) in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Then, in September 2013, the RSF was deployed against peaceful demonstrators who were protesting the Sudanese government's removal of subsidies on basic commodities. More than 170 people were killed in September 2013, in incidents that unmasked the Sudanese regime's dependence on the militia to quell political dissent and marked a new evolution in the role of the RSF. Starting in 2015 and 2016, and convinced of the RSF's effectiveness as a counterinsurgency force, the regime designated the RSF as Sudan's primary force tasked with patrolling Sudanese borders to interdict migrants' movement. The Sudanese government made this designation within the framework of its partnership with the EU for the control of migration. As such, the RSF is positioned to receive EU funds for reducing the flows of migrants from Sudan to Europe. The Sudanese government enacted a law in January 2017 that integrated the RSF into the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF, national army). The 2017 law (conflictingly) made the RSF autonomous, integrated into the army, and under the command of President Omar al-Bashir. The EU and the EU member states that are most engaged with Sudan in the actual programmatic partnership on migration flows should scrutinize the record and conduct of the RSF as the partnership unfolds. By "building the capacity" of Sudan's newly minted border force with funding and training, the EU would not only be strengthening the hand of the RSF but also could find itself underwriting a complex system of a "militia state" that Sudan has evolved into since the current regime came to power in 1989. In so doing, the EU contradicts and undermines the overriding objectives of its own founding treaty. EU members cannot advance peace, security, and human rights and they cannot stem irregular migration from Sudan and the Horn of Africa by directly funding a government that deploys a militia group that stokes violent conflict, commits atrocities, and creates massive displacement of populations within Sudan. The remainder of this paper synthesizes public information about the RSF's activities and argues how EU support for this group could ultimately worsen irregular migration to Europe, escalate violent conflict within Sudan and the Horn of Africa, and embolden a regime and militia force that acts with impunity and now faces even fewer checks on its criminal behavior. This paper aims to highlight the latest developments from Sudan and examine the record of earlier engagements of the RSF, lest one or all of Sudan's EU partners claim, at a later date, that they were unaware of the perverse incentives at play. Details: Washington, DC: Enough Project, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.enoughproject.org/files/BorderControl_April2017_Enough_Finals.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.enoughproject.org/files/BorderControl_April2017_Enough_Finals.pdf Shelf Number: 144768 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrationMigrantsMigration Enforcement |
Author: Burgi-Palomino, Daniella Title: "Does My Story Matter?" Seeking Asylum at Mexico's Southern Border Summary: Mexico closed 2016 with a record total of 8,788 asylum applications, more than double compared to 2015. Over 90 percent of these were from Central America, which reflects the flow of families and children from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador seeking protection not only in the United States but also across the region. This year, asylum applications continue to grow. According to preliminary government figures, between January and March 2017 Mexico received 3,543 asylum applications, more than it did in all of 2015. In the United States, apprehensions of individuals and families at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped in the first few months of 2017 compared to figures for the same period in 2016. However, the conditions in Central America driving this migration remain largely unchanged - the high levels of gang violence, corruption, and impunity remain some of the worst in the world. According to one study, in both 2015 and 2016 El Salvador was the world's most violent country, and its capital, San Salvador, was the most murderous city. The three Northern Triangle countries had a combined total of 14,870 homicides in 2016 and individually were still well above the minimum of 10 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants identified by the United Nations to constitute an epidemic of violence - with El Salvador at 81 murders, Honduras at 58, and Guatemala at 27 per every 100,000 inhabitants. NGO reports from early 2017 demonstrate sustained generalized violence perpetrated by gangs and security forces resulting in forced displacement, extortion, sexual and gender-based violence, severe limitations on access to education for children, and internal displacement due to the construction of megaprojects. Latin America Working Group Education Fund (LAWGEF) staff traveled to Tenosique and Tapachula in southern Mexico during the second half of 2016 in order to understand the dynamics of Central American asylum-seeking families and children crossing Mexico's southern border, the degree to which they had access to protections, and how they were impacted by migration enforcement operations. We concluded that, three years after the implementation of Mexico's Southern Border Plan, harsh migration enforcement tactics continue to violate the rights of not only migrants but also of Mexican border communities. We found that the routes inland from the border near Tenosique and Tapachula remain full of danger for migrants and asylum seekers. Violence is perpetuated by organized crime, smaller criminal groups, and often in collusion with Mexican migration enforcement agents and local police. Access to asylum in Mexico is still the exception rather than the rule. The process remains difficult and frustrating. Obtaining international protection in Mexico is largely dependent on access to legal counsel, case accompaniment, and proximity to Mexico's Commission for Refugee Assistance (Comision Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados, COMAR) offices to complete the process. Mexico's National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migracion, INM) often discourages migrants from applying for asylum as opposed to effectively screening individuals and channeling them to COMAR. Far too few children have a chance to access asylum in Mexico and are not channeled to COMAR from Mexico's National System for Integral Development of the Family (Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, DIF) or INM facilities. We confirmed that efforts to house asylum seekers outside of detention facilities, or alternatives to detention initiatives, are being implemented on an ad-hoc basis and are far from fully institutionalized across the country. At the same time, this report confirms a growing interest among asylum seekers in staying in Mexico, if they have access to services and jobs. We found that even after receiving asylum, refugees have limited opportunities to lead a normal life along Mexico's southern border because of a lack of opportunities and safety concerns. Despite all of these challenges, it is important to note that Mexico has taken some steps forward to strengthen its asylum system and address abuses against migrants since our trip. However, it is a mixed bag. While there has been progress, there have also been some steps backwards. These problems demonstrate that Mexico's asylum system must still be strengthened by increasing COMAR's resources to expand staffing and coverage across Mexico, expanding alternatives to detention programs for asylum seekers, and ensuring adequate screening and identification of all those in need of protection, including unaccompanied migrant children. U.S. support for improving Mexico's asylum system should be an integral part of its cooperation with Mexico. Details: Washington, DC: Latin America Working Group, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: http://lawg.org/storage/documents/LAWGEF_MX_Asylum_Report_July_2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: http://lawg.org/storage/documents/LAWGEF_MX_Asylum_Report_July_2017.pdf Shelf Number: 148185 Keywords: Asylum SeekersMigrantsMigration Enforcement |
Author: Danelo, David J. Title: For Protection or Profit? Free trade, human smuggling and international border management Summary: For the past two decades, policy officials and human-rights groups in both Europe and the US have participated in a vicious cycle of criticizing each other over the impact of border-control policies. Many activists hold enforcement authorities responsible for the human impact of migration enforcement, evident in allegations of increases in human smuggling and the grim realities of migrant deaths. In contrast, policymakers often claim that humanrights advocates encourage migration and risk-taking by proposing consequence-free international transit, which exacerbates the problem. Although the role of free-trade policies and supply chains is critical to understanding the border-management landscape in which these activities play out, customs laws are rarely considered by either side in this debate. This policy paper considers the impact of multinational corporations on border control through so-called trusted trader and traveller programmes, whose aim is to reduce border inspections for individuals and companies by allowing inspectors to pre-screen cargo and passengers who pass background investigations. Although these programmes have become essential to the management of global supply chains, they often create an illusion of increased security while simultaneously intensifying the divide between those who are and those who are not willing to pay the fees to participate in them. The paper also critically examines two pillars of American border policy - beyond-the-border initiatives and joint border management - and compares them with security elements of the European system. These mechanisms, which increased sharply through American-led initiatives following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, often appear effective and harmless, and therefore receive little scrutiny. Both in the US and Europe, multinational border-control agreements have been subjected to little scrutiny because of the failure of stakeholders to hold the global transportation system and state authorities accountable for these agreements. Although scant empirical evidence is available, what little does exist suggests that illicit activities, such as smuggling, are only marginally deterred by these strategies. By taking advantage of the vulnerabilities in such border-control agreements, smugglers of migrants and contraband are able to exploit trusted trader/ traveler programmes and public-private partnerships by using companies or people that are participants to make illicit transits. Although these agreements should not be eliminated, Europe should be cautious about mirroring the American approach to border management. And amid the current political climate of increasingly xenophobic US immigration policies, European policy negotiators should consider stipulating minimum requirements for participation in US programmes, including protections for people seeking humanitarian relief. Details: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Note: Accessed April 18, 2018 at: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/For-Protection-or-Profit-Intl-Border-Management-March-2018-web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: International URL: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/For-Protection-or-Profit-Intl-Border-Management-March-2018-web.pdf Shelf Number: 149847 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlBorder SecurityHuman SmugglingIllegal ImmigrationMigration EnforcementOrganized Crime |
Author: Horwood, Chris Title: The new 'public enemy number one': Comparing and contrasting the war on drugs and the emerging war on migrant smugglers Summary: There are those who seek to apply the experience of the war on drugs to the emerging war on migrant smugglers to warn that such a confrontation carries high costs, low chances of success and would likely lead to an escalation of violence against the migrants themselves. Such arguments suggest we should learn from the war on drugs' failures, and design different policy and criminal justice responses to irregular migration and human smugglers so as not to repeat past and ongoing failures. This research report examines this hypothesis; that the war on drugs is analogous to the war on migrant smuggling and that the lessons derived from the war on drugs are applicable to current policy makers around migration. Using a compare-and-contrast analysis it looks at the intrinsic aspects of the commodities themselves (substances vs migrants), the dynamics and modalities of the respective illicit economies, the lessons learnt from the war on drugs, the policy environment and implications of using alternative approaches, namely 'legalising' drugs and/or new approaches, inter alia, towards decriminalizing irregular migration. Details: s.l.: Mixed Migration Centre, 2019. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2019 at: http://www.mixedmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/060_new-public-enemy-number-1_full-report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: International URL: http://www.mixedmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/060_new-public-enemy-number-1_full-report.pdf Shelf Number: 155211 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Migrants Migrant Smuggling Migrants Migration Enforcement |