Seeking Sanctuary:
Asylum and the Politics of Compassion in Ireland
Anwen Tormey, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Chicago
Outline of talk
• States’ contradictory approach to
Asylum
• Two arcs of my discussion today
• The evacuation of politics into
jurisprudence
• The evacuation of jurisprudence
into humanitarianism
Refugees ...
“the most symptomatic group in contemporary
politics”
(The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt 1951)
• brings into relief the claims of:
• citizens v. non-citizens
• economic migrants v. political
refugees
• national v. international legal
regimes
• social, political, economic and
moral barometer of the nationstate
Post-War Refugee
Protections:
•
•
•
July 28, 1951 twelve nations
sign the Convention on
Refugees
1951 UN Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees
1967 Protocol
and a range of instruments such
as 1969 Organization of African
Unity Convention on Refugees
Definitions:
A refugee is someone who
owing to a well founded
fear of persecution for
reasons of political opinion,
race, religion, nationality or
membership in a particular
social group are outside
their country of nationality
and are unable or, as a
result of such fear, unwilling
to return to it ...
An asylum seeker is someone
who is seeking refugee status
Narrowness of 1951 UN Convention
In contrast to the 1951
Convention, the 1969 OAU
definition affords refugee status
to “every person who, owing to
external aggression, occupation,
foreign domination or events
seriously disturbing public order
in either part or the whole of his
country of origin or nationality, is
compelled to leave his place of
habitual residence in order to
seek refuge in another place
outside his country of nationality”
• The post 1951 triumph of human rights is
also a triumph of the nation-state:
•
despite the lofty rhetoric of human rights
based legislation, refugees and asylumseekers must rely on the generosity of an
inter-national system where each member
claimed the sovereign right to determine their
entry and citizenship policies
•
A ‘schizophrenic’ approach to asylum has emerged
among Western States since the 1980s:
•
•
While states publicly avow the moral
importance of political protection regimes and
global responsibility for refugees
States have simultaneously emplaced an
amazing array of restrictive measures:
Restrictive Measures Include:
•
Schengen Acquis - Biometrics and
information sharing among EU
member states (other than Ireland and
UK)
•
Frontex
(EU
Border
Police),
Detention, Dispersal regimes
•
VISA regimes, Carrier Sanctions
•
Refusal to allow asylees to land on
sovereign soil in order to make claims
•
Plans to concentrate asylum camps
extra-territorially and process claims
outside sovereign territory of EU
member states
A group of Sub-Saharan African migrants sits in an Italian Coast Guard
boat as they are brought to the harbour of the Italian island of
Lampedusa, on 15 April 2011. EPA/BGNES
EU Asylum Legislation
•
Common European Asylum System
• largely aspirational??
•
2008 European Pact on Asylum
“... expresses, at the highest level,
the political commitment of the
European Union and its Member
States, vis-à-vis their citizens and
non-member countries, for an
effective common policy in
immigration matters.”
• What is the Pact?
•
The Pact is a political document, by which the Member States of the
European Union have a commitment to each other, their citizens and
the rest of the world. It contains a set of political objectives and
strategic guidelines for the development of European immigration and
asylum policies.
•
•
•
5 key areas of the European Pact:
1. To organise legal immigration to take account of the priorities,
needs and reception capabilities determined by each Member State,
and to encourage integration;
2. To control illegal immigration by ensuring the return of illegal
immigrants to their country of origin or a country of transit;
•
3. To make border controls more effective;
•
4. To construct a Europe of asylum;
•
5. To create a comprehensive partnership with countries of origin and
transit to encourage synergy between migration and development
(part of EU’s “Global Approach to Migration” (2005).
EU Rights-Based
Legislation
The Charter of Fundamental Rights contains a preamble and 54 Articles, grouped in seven
chapters:
•chapter I: dignity (human dignity, the right to life, the right to the integrity of the person,
prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prohibition of slavery and
forced labour);
•chapter II: freedoms (the right to liberty and security, respect for private and family life, protection
of personal data, the right to marry and found a family, freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the arts and
sciences, the right to education, freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work,
freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to asylum, protection in the event of
removal, expulsion or extradition);
•chapter III: equality (equality before the law, non-discrimination, cultural, religious and linguistic
diversity, equality between men and women, the rights of the child, the rights of the elderly,
integration of persons with disabilities);
•chapter IV: solidarity (workers’ right to information and consultation within the undertaking, the
right of collective bargaining and action, the right of access to placement services, protection in the
event of unjustified dismissal, fair and just working conditions, prohibition of child labour and
protection of young people at work, family and professional life, social security and social assistance,
health care, access to services of general economic interest, environmental protection, consumer
protection);
•chapter V: citizens’ rights (the right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections to the European
Parliament and at municipal elections, the right to good administration, the right of access to
documents, European Ombudsman, the right to petition, freedom of movement and residence,
diplomatic and consular protection);
•chapter
the right
right not
•chapter
VI: justice (the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, presumption of innocence and
of defence, principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, the
to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence);
VII: general provisions.
The Ethics of Asylum:
what’s at stake in refusing
asylum?
What is our responsibility to
refugees?
How do states decide ethically?
•
Should states accept?
•
Should decisions be made on a moral or a political basis?
•
Should we distinguish between economic and political
refugees?
•
How many do we accept?
•
Should we decide based on the political interests of citizens?
•
Should we decide based on foreign policy interests?
•
Should we make decisions based on notions of distributive
justice?
•
What about the notion of majoritarian views?
(if we agree then we have to accept that states can disregard
refugee claims)
‘Closure’
v.
‘Open Borders’
- Arguments for Closure
•
States, as communitarian interest sets, are
justified in restricting entrance of asylees/refugees
in order to protect the social, political and
economic interests of communities of current
citizens -
• But ... this communitarian argument for
discretion in granting entrance usually boils
down to a constitutive arguments about
shared cultural attachment and distinctive
identity being disrupted/swamped by
foreign influences
•
(see Will Kymlicka 1995, Michael Walzer 1983 and Charles Taylor 1993)
How are foreigners assumed to
disrupt the interests of citizens?
•
•
•
Large inflows may lead to racialized violence
Put pressure on State’s infrastructure (health,
education, welfare regimes, etc)
Undermine law and order in the state (differences
between populations may be intractable)
•What
Harmdoes
Principle:
Under the principle
that
the argument
for Closure
states should overlook?
refrain from engaging in
harm to others, do states have a
responsibility to accept refugees?
• In case of Kosovo/Albanian
bombing?
• Encouragement of Kurds to revolt?
• Invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan?
• Support of refugee-producing
regimes?
• Destabilising outcomes of neoliberal policy/structural adjustment
What does argument for
Closure overlook? (Cont’d)
• Harm: Is inflicting harm morally different
than failing to aid?
• Distance: do we give priority to those on
our doorstep over those who are living
in refugee camps (need v. distance)?
Open Borders
Open Border Arguments:
• (Broadly) views states as morally required to:
• impartially consider the claims of citizens and
strangers alike. This implies:
•
•
•
idea of universalizability, human equality
(means all people have a right to same
protections, life chances, etc. of Western
citizens)
liberty to move freely as a norm - exclusion
by the state then has to be justified
represents a radical challenge to territorial
sovereignty
Liberal inconsistencies re: Open Borders
Approach
Often, liberals support free movement
within but not between states
•
• Liberal support for right to leave state
without corresponding right to enter
• Moral inconsistency between
globalized mobility of
goods/services/information but not
people
•
shouldn’t labourers be able to seek out best
returns just as global investors do?
Open Borders and Welfare
State
• Open borders’ proponents believe in range of social as
well as civil and political rights for individuals**
•
For some (e.g., Singer and Singer 1988) means
states have no right to restrict the welfare state only
to citizens
•
•
BUT ... in practice, such solidarity requires
some ‘fellow feeling’ which many be difficult
where membership changes rapidly
No one can be sure of the practical outcome of open
borders in a world where half the people live on less
than US$2 /day
“Centuries of turmoil, conquest, famine and subsequent immigration have certainly taken their
toll on the Irish: it's left them with a deliciously dark sense of humour and a welcoming attitude
towards strangers. That famous ability of the Irish to find craic (fun times) in boom or bust
times means you're always in for a treat.”
(http://fun.umakant.info/)
ENCOUNTERING THE TIGER:
seeking asylum in the land of a hundred thousand welcomes
“We’re against the spongers, the freeloaders, the people screwing the
system … Too many are coming to Ireland … I’m saying we will
have to close the doors. The majority of them are here for economic
reasons and they are thumbing their noses at Irish hospitality and
demanding everything under the guise of the Geneva Convention
while the taxpayer is paying for it all. … [t]here should be
compulsory health checks for all illegals so that our health system is
protected and our disease eradication programmes are not interfered
with … and there should be a referendum on the question of giving
automatic citizenship to asylum-seekers’ children born here.”
Minister Noel O’Flynn
Irish Times Jan. 29, 2002
Further reading on Racism and Immigration in Ireland:
“If I wanted to go there I wouldn’t start from here: reimagining a multi-ethnic nation”
and
“Toward a strategic immigration policy: some key
elements”
States and Asylum
“If the provision of protection for refugees is
its central goal, then the system of asylum
offered by Western states is currently in deep
crisis” (Gibney 2004:229)
Immigrant- and refugee-receiving states
capitalize on the crises generated by highprofile human smuggling events to
implement a series of restrictive measures
designed to control immigration (Mountz
2010: xv)
The Evacuation of Politics
into Jurisprudence
The Evacuation of
Jurisprudence into
Humanitarianism
Closing Thoughts
“Liberal governments may have to open themselves to the fact
that under conditions of ongoing violence people will take
recourse to many ways of escaping that violence ... their
methods of escape might not be ‘legal’ at least as the
immigration authorities or even psychiatrists define legality.”
[Das, 2007:330-335]
“This need not require that we be agnostic about the issue of
truthful testimony. However, contemporary political realities
demand that we acknowledge the fact that many asylees are
forced to convert the psychic trauma of impoverishment and
hopelessness into a performed psychic trauma of formulaic
political violence” [Malkki 2007: 341]