The Effects of Assisted Voluntary Return Programs on Marginalized Women: A Critique of the IOM and UNHCR

This paper examines the evolution of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) from humanitarian agencies to migration management bodies through the use of Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Programs to repatriate asylum seekers. In this paper, I argue that the normative shift toward the use of AVRs by International Organizations (IOs) is detrimental to Global South migrant women because it presents them with a forced decision to return to their countries of origin in exchange for money at the cost of surrendering their access to the refugee regime

The Economic Drivers of Human Trafficking: Micro-Evidence from Five Eastern European Countries..

Human trafficking is a humanitarian problem of global scale, but quantitative research on the issue barely exists. This paper is a first attempt to explore the economic drivers of human trafficking and migrant exploitation using micro data. We argue that migration pressure combined with informal migration patterns and incomplete information are the key determinants of human trafficking. To test our argument, we use a unique new dataset of 5513 households from Belarus, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine. The main result is in line with our expectations: Migrant families in high-migration areas and with larger migrant networks are much more likely to have a trafficked victim among their members. Our results also indicate that illegal migration increases trafficking risks and that awareness campaigns and a reduction of information asymmetries might be an effective strategy to reduce the crime.Human Trafficking; Migrant Exploitation; Illegal Migration; Migration Networks; Eastern Europe;

Australia's Humanitarian Program: a quick guide to the statistics since 1947

Includes humanitarian entrant estimates between 1947–48 and 1976–77 and Humanitarian Program visa grants since 1977–78. Summary Australia has a long history of accepting refugees and other humanitarian entrants from all parts of the globe, including those in need of assistance during and immediately after World War II. Since 1945, when the first  federal immigration  portfolio was established to administer Australia’ s post - war migration program, over  80 0,000 refugees and displaced persons have settled in Australia . However, it was not until Indochinese asylum seekers, fleeing conflict during the Vietnam War, began to arrive by boat that the Australian Government developed a specific refugee policy. Australia’ s first planned Humanitarian Program designed to deal with refugee and humanitarian issues, including the determination of onshore protection claims, was subsequently established by the Fraser Government in 1977. Since then, permanent migrants  have entered Australia via one of two distinct programs — the Migration Program for skilled and family migrants or the Humanitarian Program for refugees and those in refugee - like  situations. The Australian Government allocates places, or quotas, each year for people wanting to migrate permanently to Australia under these two programs. Annual statistics on Migration and Humanitarian Program ‘outcomes’ (visa grants) published by the Immigration Department since the 1970s, provide the most accurate source of data on the number of people granted visas to migrate to Australia. It is important to understand that there are two main components of Australia’s Humanitarian Program — offshore and onshore:  • the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program offers resettlement in Australia to refugees and humanitarian entrants from overseas under two categories. Most offshore refugees are referred to Australia by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and are formally accepted and resettled under the ‘Refugee’ category. These entrants have been assessed and accepted as refugees under Refugee Convention criteria. The Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) also offers resettlement to those offshore who, while not necessarily being refugees, face human rights abuses in their home country and have a connection with Australia. Applicants must have a sponsor (e.g. a permanent resident, Australian citizen or organisation).  Applications from family members of people already in Australia are referred to as ‘split family’. • the onshore component  of the Humanitarian Program  offers protection to people who have arrived in  Australia, lodged an asylum claim, and been granted protection. Onshore humanitarian entrants may have  been found to be refugees under Refugee Convention criteria or may otherwise engage Australia’s protection  obligations under other  human rights conventions

Building a new life in Australia: introducing the longitudinal study of humanitarian migrants

Introduces a study aimed to shed light on the settlement pathways and outcomes of newly arrived humanitarian migrants, focusing particularly on the factors that promote or hinder a successful transition. Introduction Building a New Life in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Humanitarian Migrants is a newly initiated study that aims to better understand the factors that aid or hinder the successful settlement of humanitarian migrants in Australia, and to provide an evidence base to inform policy and program development. This ground-breaking longitudinal study will employ annual data collections over five years to trace the settlement journey of humanitarian migrants from their arrival in Australia through to their eligibility for citizenship. All study participants have received a permanent humanitarian visa enabling them to settle in Australia, granted either before their arrival in Australia as part of Australia\u27s refugee program, or since their arrival, through Australia\u27s asylum seeker humanitarian program. Study participants have come from a diverse range of backgrounds and a multitude of migration pathways. Three broad research questions guide the study: What are the settlement outcomes of humanitarian migrants? How are they faring in terms of their English language proficiency, housing circumstances, labour force participation, use of qualifications, income, physical and mental health, community engagement, citizenship and level of satisfaction with life in Australia? How does access to and use of government and non-government services and welfare benefits contribute to humanitarian migrants\u27 successful settlement? Do the settlement experiences and outcomes of humanitarian migrants vary according to the differing migration pathways taken? The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) has been commissioned by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) (formerly the Department of Immigration and Citizenship [DIAC]) to undertake and manage the project. Colmar Brunton Social Research, in conjunction with Multicultural Marketing and Management, is the fieldwork agency undertaking the data collection for the project. From April 2014, responsibility for the study moved from the DIBP to the Department of Social Services

The Syrian refugee crisis: a comparison of responses by Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States

The conflict in Syria between the government of Bashar al-Assad and various other forces, which started in the spring of 2011, continues to cause displacement within the country and across the region. By the end of 2014, an estimated 7.6 million people were internally displaced and 3.7 million Syrians had fled the country since the conflict began (OCHA 2014; UNHCR 2015a). The refugee situation caused by the Syrian conflict is dire, and it has placed enormous strain on neighboring countries. Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey host massive numbers of Syrian refugees, and Syrians have been seeking protection beyond these countries in increasing numbers since 2011. This paper looks at the burdens and costs of the Syrian refugee crisis and considers how they have, or have not, been shared by the international community at large, and in particular by Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It also considers to what degree Syrians have been able to find protection in states outside the region. Germany and Sweden, by the end of 2014, had provided protection to the largest number of Syrian refugees outside the region. Although Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States differ in the level of protection provided to Syrians, all four states have increased protection to Syrians via resettlement and asylum (and in the case of the US temporary protected status) since 2012. Despite this, the degree of protection provided by the four states is modest in relation to that provided by neighboring countries to Syria, and far more could be done. This paper also argues that the international community as a whole has not sufficiently contributed toward alleviating the burden caused by the Syrian refugee influx, in terms of both financial assistance and refugee resettlement. The paper puts forward two general recommendations to reduce the strain on neighboring countries: increase the level of burden sharing by the international community as a whole and more evenly distribute the burden among industrialized states in Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific. In terms of enhancing the level of protection for Syrians in countries beyond the region, it proposes three recommendations for states: namely, increase refugee resettlement, facilitate family reunification and other forms of legal admission, and allow refugees to seek protection through embassies in the region

No. 22: South African Government and Civil Society Responses to Zimbabwean Migration

This policy brief discusses a key paradox in relation to Zimbabwean migration into South Africa. While Zimbabwean migration since 2000 has been the largest concentrated flow in South African history, South Africa’s reaction to this movement has been characterised by the attempt to continue with ‘business as usual’ and ‘no crisis’ responses.1 Compared with most other developed and developing countries, where an inflow of tens or hundreds of thousands of people is usually treated as a political crisis, such a non-response to over a million immigrants requires explanation. The lack of commensurate responses is especially noticeable within the various departments of the South African government, but also within much of organised civil society. The scale and range of responses has addressed neither the scale nor the specific nature of Zimbabwean migration.2 In practice, therefore, addressing migrant needs and migration impacts is left to social networks among Zimbabweans, (often poor) South African citizens and local level public service providers such as local clinics. As a result of this fragmented and inadequate set of responses there are two major gaps: firstly between the needs of Zimbabwean migrants and the formal institutional frameworks and services provided to them, and secondly between the impacts of Zimbabwean migration on South African society and its ability to manage these impacts. There has been increasing documentation of Zimbabwean migrants’ welfare needs in South Africa (Bloch 2005; Zimbabwe Torture Victims Project 2005; Makina 2007; CoRMSA 2008; Human Rights Watch 2008). However, in parallel to the lack of coherent government and civil society responses to Zimbabwean migration, there has been a relative dearth of academic or think-tank documentation or analysis of these responses, and indeed of the implications of non-response for South Africa (Polzer 2008). Crucially, there has been no serious research on the dispersed and privatised responses by Zimbabwean networks and South African citizens, even though the aggregate impact of these actors is likely to be at least as significant, if not more so, than formal responses

A Continued Humanitarian Crisis at the Border: Undocumented Border Crosser Deaths Recorded by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner, 1990-2012

This report analyzes the numeric trends and demographic characteristics of the deaths of undocumented border crossers in the area covered by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner which is located in the city of Tucson, Arizona. This office provides medico-legal death investigation for the western two-thirds of the Tucson Sector's southern border with Mexico (Anderson 2008) and has been the office responsible for the examination of over 95% of all migrant remains discovered in Arizona since 2003 (Coalición de Derechos Humanos 2013). The data for this report come from the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner