UUI, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 47: Orientering af offentliggørelsen den 4. oktober 2018 i Wien af det dansk-østrigske visionspapir om a better protection system in a globalized world", fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeriet

Udlændinge- og Integrationsudvalget 2018-19 (1. samling)
UUI Alm.del Bilag 47
Offentligt

Vision for a Better Protection System in a Globalized World

Mending a Broken System

Introductory remarks:

The purpose of this paper is to address the obvious: the present asylum system is dysfunctional in

many ways, not fit for a globalized world and needs to be mended.

Until now, we developed a lot of strategies, action plans, papers and bundles of measures without

having a commonly agreed goal.

This is a vision paper. While it cannot refer to every detail, it ensures a common direction.

It is a compass - it should ensure that we, for the first time, strive towards the same long-term goal.

Without having a clearly defined goal we will not find the way.

This vision builds on and is meant to supplement the European Council conclusions from June 2018.

Migration and asylum

policy will shape Europe’s future.

Migration brings change: for migrants, for societies in countries of origin, and for the citizens

of destination countries. Change is often deeply felt and politically contested.

Many citizens have lost trust in their governments’ ability to deal with the challenges of

irregular migration. In the current system it´s not only the Member States of the EU that

decide who enters the European Union but first and foremost smugglers (and to a lesser

extent migrants themselves). The result is a massive loss of trust. Trust will not be restored

simply by short-term partial strategies and measures at EU-level. There is an urgent need for

an alternative, unifying vision. The priority must be to reassure our citizens by creating a

sustainable policy framework that simultaneously has democratic support, meets our legal

and ethical obligations, and is sufficiently prudent to avoid a legacy of regrets.

Given our own histories, European countries recognise and appreciate the value of the 1951

Refugee Convention. It will always be a core value of the European Union and its Member

States to provide protection to people fleeing persecution due to their race, religion,

nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

Regrettably, the way in which the 1951 Refugee Convention is currently being implemented,

combined with increased opportunities for mobility and communication created by

globalization, is enabling increasing numbers of irregular migrants and refugees, who have

already found protection in another country, to enter Europe through our asylum systems. It

has never been the intention of the 1951 Refugee Convention to promote transcontinental,

economically induced secondary migration.

Through this historically determined conceptual weakness fraud is rewarded. Many simply

disappear into the informal economy once their asylum claims are rejected. This possibility

has long been abused by organized criminal networks that boost irregular movement by

selling false hope of a better life in the EU, resulting in thousands of deaths, exploitation, and

modern slavery. In spite of these fatal consequences, there are still people who

–

for various

reasons

–

praise and strongly support the present system.

The criminal networks rely upon appeals to the moral conscience of Europeans, suggesting

that we are collectively guilty of the resulting death and despair; suggesting that it is our duty

to offer permanent integration to all the people criminals have lured into taking perilous land

routes or boat journeys across the Mediterranean. In such a Darwinist system the fittest and

not the most vulnerable are rewarded. We are faced with a tragic humanitarian situation that

results in the loss of thousands of lives every year. We cannot accept this any longer. We

must prevent this unnecessary death and suffering, while ensuring that our asylum and

migration policies are sustainable. This is why our highest ethical and political priorities are to

develop a better protection system for a globalized world.

UUI, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 47: Orientering af offentliggørelsen den 4. oktober 2018 i Wien af det dansk-østrigske visionspapir om a better protection system in a globalized world", fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeriet

This is our vision with seven goals and seven steps towards a better, fairer system.

Goals of a Better Protection System

Helping the most vulnerable:

Establish a system that will identify and assist those

who really need protection rather than unintentionally favouring those who have the

greatest financial means and/or endurance to embark on long journeys.

Help to create perspectives in regions of origin instead of enabling irregular

migration to Europe:

Reinforce global support to countries of

first reception,

including by improving economic opportunities and livelihoods, both for refugees and

host communities, in order to enhance protection and minimize the need for onward

irregular movement.

Prevent further deaths and tragedies in the Mediterranean and along the

migratory routes:

Strengthen the capacity of asylum and migration authorities

along

the migratory routes

to ensure access to protection and to effectively combat

trafficking and smuggling, thus reducing exploitation and the loss of lives of irregular

migrants and migrating refugees.

Break the business model of traffickers and smugglers:

Establish a legal Search

and Rescue (SAR) framework in the entire Mediterranean, based on existing maritime

conventions, as well as set up SAR centres/Regional Disembarkation Arrangements

outside the EU to prevent SAR operations from being an unintended operational tool

of traffickers and smugglers.

Guarantee

effective management of the EU’s external

borders & Ensure all

individuals staying illegally leave the EU:

this should include screening procedures

at enhanced hot-spots. Use all necessary foreign policy tools to ensure humane

return

–

preferably on a voluntary basis

–

of all individuals without a legal right to

remain to either 1) their countries of origin 2) a safe third country or 3) a return centre

or an alternative legal migration destination located outside the EU. Circumvention of

protection opportunities (“safe havens”) along migratory routes should no longer be

feasible and shall be taken into account in the national refugee determination

systems.

Engage in common but differentiated responsibility-sharing in order to protect

refugees and effectively stem irregular migration to the EU:

All EU- and

Schengen-States must show solidarity

–

not least in crisis situations. States should

have a choice as to how. Solidarity should include measures in regions of origin,

along the migratory routes, at the external border, and upon arrival in the EU.

Offer resettlement to those with the greatest need for protection rather than the

strongest selecting themselves:

Once irregular movement is reduced and public

trust restored, safe and legal pathways via resettlement are created for the most

vulnerable and those with the greatest protection needs.

A key step in this context is to realign current practice with the core principles of the

1951 Refugee Convention: Protection for those who need it as close to his or her

country of origin as possible. Refugees are entitled to live in safety and dignity; they

are not entitled to unlimited migration.

It is essential to support and stabilize the

safe haven countries

that provide safe sanctuary to

the majority of the world’s refugees.

We want to help those states and host communities,

particularly in Africa and the Middle East, that provide effective protection to those in need.

The majority of the world’s refugees are

not in Europe, and probably do not want to come to

Europe. They find sanctuary in low and middle-income countries. They are best suited to do

so, being in close proximity to the countries of origin and often sharing language, culture and

family links with those fleeing their homes. Protection in the region at the earliest possible

stage is, in principle, the preferred protection model. This is what we should focus on in our

response to refugees.

However, our response cannot be limited to indefinite humanitarian assistance: food,

clothing, and shelter. Although this kind of humanitarian aid is, without a doubt, of importance

we need more than our current, short-term approach: It must primarily include the restoration

of autonomy, dignity and community. This means creating jobs and providing the means for

self-reliance. The governments of countries of first asylum will only permit refugees to work,

and be willing to keep their borders open, if their own people gain from doing so. This dual

task of bringing jobs to refugees, and improved conditions and enhanced economic

opportunities to host populations, is the primary obligation of European countries as far as

refugees are concerned. Although it is entirely feasible, we have persistently failed to meet it.

Improved safety and access to self-reliance can reduce secondary movements and is an

important prerequisite for a durable solution. If we can provide adequate assistance and

development opportunities to refugees and their surrounding host communities in the

countries neighbouring conflicts and crises, few refugees will need to move onwards to

Europe. What most refugees need is not migration; it is safety and normality, until they can

go home or are accepted as productive citizens in their regional haven. Here, globalization

can be harnessed for good: it can bring jobs to safe havens. As long as the citizens of those

countries benefit, their governments will welcome it. This has already happened in Jordan:

with European support Jordan offered refugees the right to work.

Furthermore, there is a need to align efforts to support refugee-hosting communities with

self-reliance strategies and with national poverty reduction strategies. Under certain

preconditions the presence of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons can result in

new opportunities and benefits for national and local economies. In culturally and

economically comparable countries the

refugees’ human capital, including labour skills and

their demand for goods and services can have a positive effect. This would particularly be

the case if more private business would invest in save haven countries and avail of such

human capital. Based on these preconditions refugees can contribute as drivers of

development to the benefit of host countries.

Refugees are not natural migrants: they are people who chose to stay home until they were

forcibly displaced. In contrast to economic migration, development opportunities for refugees

can reduce the demand for onward movement. Examples of progressive policies for the

economic inclusion of refugees are found in countries like Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia, and

deserve major European support.

It is not within the scope and purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention to cross several safe

countries in order to ultimately end up in a preferred destination. This misinterpretation of the

1951 Refugee Convention today leads to the suffering and death depicted above.

A sustainable European asylum policy will therefore need to distinguish between refugees

who have already found a safe haven close to home, and those who absolutely need to

move further afield in order to be safe. Once again it has to be stressed: Refugees have a

right to live in safety and dignity; they do not have a right to unlimited migration.

Implementing this important distinction

–

refugees who have yet to find safe haven versus

those who have already found it

–

is operationally challenging but essential.

The European Union and its Member States should therefore strive towards a shared

understanding that an application for asylum in Europe will only be accepted, if the country of

arrival is indeed the "nearest safe haven". In other words, the person must be a refugee

and

have either 1) faced persecution in a neighbouring country or 2) had no realistic possibility to

claim effective protection in a country located between the EU and the country of origin. The

application and verification of admissibility should, wherever possible, take place in

appropriate locations at, or beyond, the common external border.

The EU should remain committed to granting sanctuary to those genuinely in need of

protection within Europe. EU

“mobile

protection teams”

–

composed of asylum experts from

EU Member States, EASO and UNHCR

–

will be required to identify and examine requests

from refugees primarily in crisis regions and in need of protection outside their first country of

asylum, and bring them safely to the EU. They would then be resettled directly to specific EU

Member States. They might be allocated to a particular EU Member State, based on

particular national preferences relating to

the refugees’

background.

This mobile approach, with an emphasis on coordinated resettlement at an EU-wide level,

will ensure that the EU offers sanctuary to the most vulnerable. By combining the measure of

resettlement with the measures of the other six goals the incentive to unnecessarily embark

on dangerous journeys with often tragic outcome is reduced. At the same time, a signal of

regaining control is being sent to the European citizens: Planning and steering with regard to

quantities, target groups and integration of refugees will be provided. The expectations and

needs of the European societies will no longer be ignored and in establishing this model, the

core principle of protection is stressed: offering protection to those in need and at the same

time destroying the perfidious business model of organized criminal networks; ending death

and suffering in the Mediterranean and on the road to Europe.

The core principle of responsibility-sharing shall be mandatory solidarity instead of

mandatory allocation. It is the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibility-sharing.

All EU member states must contribute, whether by offering asylum to those in need of

protection, providing resettlement from a first country of asylum, or through financial or other

relevant contributions. All countries should strive to do a bit of each, but the balance should

be in accordance with citizen preferences. All means of showing solidarity are to be

respected; no one is wrong and reproachable. The main purpose of showing solidarity should

be to ensure effective protection and livelihoods for refugees and to reduce irregular

migration to the EU.

This system should also be linked to a clear commitment to prevent secondary movements

within the European Union. A refugee or an asylum seeker, who has been admitted to a

particular Member State for the purpose of protection, may enjoy asylum or apply for asylum

only in this particular state. If he leaves to seek his fortune in another state, he must - as a

main rule - be returned to a hotspot/controlled centre to have his or her claim re-examined.

Effective return (voluntary or forced) of irregular migrants and rejected asylum seekers is a

fundamental element in addressing irregular immigration and a prerequisite for well-managed

migration. Any individual with no legal right to stay must eventually be returned to his or her

country of origin, a safe third country, offered the opportunity to move to an alternative

migration destination outside the EU, or, as a last resort, be placed temporarily in an open

and rights-respecting return centre in a third country. All foreign policy as well as

development policy tools should be used to facilitate international cooperation in support of

these aims.

steps towards a better protection system

An improved and better protection system will not be built from one day to the next. The

intermediate phase differentiates between measures which can be implemented ad-hoc or in

the medium-term. The route to reform relies crucially upon a whole-of-government approach.

Step 1 - Helping the most vulnerable

We need to end the Darwinist reality of our current asylum systems, where we only see

those who already made it to European shores. At present, the ones staying in and around

crisis regions - including those with great protection needs, who are physically or

economically too weak to even attempt to undertake the dangerous journey - are not even

considered. Improving the situation in the first countries of reception (step 2) and along the

migratory routes (step 3) is key to creating a better situation for the most vulnerable. This

also addresses one of the major challenges, that solely improving the situation in regions of

origin is not sufficient enough. Such measures must go hand in hand with improving the

information available to potential migrants and migrating refugees about the dangers and

consequences of irregular movements. In order to definitively prevent the tragic loss of life

and eliminate the incentives for dangerous journeys,

“Mobile Protection

Teams” need to

engage directly with the people concerned within crisis regions.

Such teams,

consisting of

asylum experts from our authorities, determine who should be offered protection as a

refugee; considering vulnerability and need for protection as well as potential links to an EU

Member State. These refugees can subsequently be brought to Europe safely and without

risking their lives by placing themselves in the hands of human traffickers. Furthermore, it will

provide European migration and integration authorities with better management tools as

quantities will be more predictable, better plannable and therefore easier to manage for the

receiving countries.

Providing sanctuary to the most vulnerable, while upholding the core principle of protection,

will allow our asylum and migration policies to become sustainable and resilient.

Step 2 - Help to create perspectives in regions of origin instead of enabling irregular

migration to Europe

Stabilization and assistance to regions of origin and countries of first reception in order to

expand the protection space and improve living conditions and livelihoods of refugees and

host communities, including through the creation of jobs and other opportunities for self-

reliance. It should ensure that refugees can enjoy an adequate level of protection, livelihoods

and eventually benefit from a durable solution in the region. This should include analysing

and improving data on the relationship between inadequate protection, lack of access to

development opportunities, and irregular secondary movement. There is also a need for

capacity building regarding integrated social services for refugee and host communities,

including those relating to housing, health care and education. It is crucial for the acceptance

of refugees that local host populations share in the benefits available to refugees. At the

same time, it is necessary to provide targeted and accessible information about viable and

regular pathways for migration to Europe as well as the risks of irregular migration.

Step 3 - Prevent further deaths and tragedies in the Mediterranean and along the

migratory routes

It is important to stabilize and support transit countries as well as receiving countries. The

asylum and migration authorities of these states must be sufficiently equipped to provide

effective protection, respect human rights, and combat smuggling and trafficking. In addition

to the information campaigns mentioned above, support should focus on areas such as

return counselling and a range of tailor-made return and reintegration assistance. Capacity-

building should be undertaken in such a way as to reduce the incentive to use countries

along the EU’s common external border as a viable means to

access sanctuary in the EU.

The primary route into the EU should be through enhanced resettlement from first countries

of asylum.

Step 4 - Break the business model of traffickers and smugglers

Effective management of the external border of the European Union is a prerequisite for the

functioning of any European Migration and Asylum System. Unfortunately, today the word

“asylum” and the unintended

use of the SAR-regime offer an open door to Europe and

undermine effective border control. This further subverts the concept of asylum by making it

vulnerable to abuse by organized criminal networks and irregular migrants, as described

above.

It is important to increase the capacities of FRONTEX, to expand its mandate

–

while

upholding sovereignty of states

–

and to intensify cooperation with third countries, especially

those on the African side of the Mediterranean. Migrants trying to come to Europe with

smuggler-boats shall be rescued as quickly as possible and brought back to SAR-centres /

Regional Disembarkation facilities outside the EU. It is of fundamental importance that

asylum and resettlement to/in the EU cannot be sought by those having been rescued; such

an opportunity would constitute a significant pull factor and further incentivise dangerous

journeys at the hands of smugglers.

Step 5 - Guarantee

effective management of the EU’s external borders

& Ensure all

individuals staying illegally leave the EU

Implementation of step 1 to 4 will lead to a significant drop in asylum applications in the EU.

This limited future number of applications must be made at the external border. At hotspots,

people will be registered, fingerprinted and screened for security reasons. However, this

does not mean they have the right to enter the European Union. The procedure will be

conducted directly at the hotspots (Controlled Centres) or transit zones. There, the safe third

country or first country of asylum concept will be applied and manifestly unfounded claims

will be rejected. The legal option for such processing already exists in the EU-acquis but

could be strengthened further.

Rule of law is a core principle of the European Union and therefore needs to be clearly

reflected in our actions: those who do not have a right of residence cannot and must not stay

in the EU. Therefore, following a negative decision, the person shall be returned directly from

the hotspots/transit zones to their country of origin or first safe country of asylum. All foreign

policy tools must be used to ensure that countries of origin readmit their nationals. In cases

in which return is not possible, the person should be placed in an open Return Centre in a

third country or given the opportunity to migrate legally to an alternative third country. Such

centres are to meet European human rights standards and provide intensive return

counselling. The possibility of accessing an assisted return and reintegration programme will

be provided.

Step 6 - Engage in common but differentiated responsibility-sharing in order to protect

refugees and effectively stem irregular migration to the EU

During and after establishing and implementing a better protection system, all Member

States should contribute to a functioning mandatory European solidarity mechanism

according to their strengths and abilities. This could be done through different means of

solidarity. Solidarity could be provided directly to the frontline Member States, for example

through the secondment of experts, through conducting joint processing of asylum claims or

through the engagement in shared return efforts. Other solidarity measures could include the

provision of financial resources to enhance protection of refugees in regions of origin and

along the migratory routes to the EU, support to disembarkation arrangements outside the

EU, support to authorities of transit countries to fight trafficking and smuggling, resettlement

or any other active assistance. All such solidarity measures must aim at enhancing protection

of refugees, stem flows of irregular migrants and migrating refugees and build on the

principle of differentiated responsibility-sharing.

Step 7 - Offer resettlement to those with the greatest need for protection rather than

the strongest selecting themselves

Once irregular migration is reduced and public trust restored, enhanced EU-wide

resettlement efforts targeting the most vulnerable refugees, based on mobile protection

teams, will present a key element of a Better Protection System for a Globalized World.

“Mobile Protection Teams” will determine the need for protection and identify the most

vulnerable directly on-site.

These are the seven steps we need to take; seven steps to regain control, order and trust;

seven steps to arrive at a fairer and better system capable of operating in a globalized world.

Once in place, it will lead to



less exploitation and loss of lives along the route

less irregular migration

less profit for organized crime

more protection to people in need

more social cohesion

more money for regions of origin

more acceptance and trust in receiving countries

and become a protection system that is worthy of its name.