Published on GEOG 571: Cultural Intelligence (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571)

Home > Lessons > Lesson 8: Mobility II - Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Lesson 8: Mobility II - Refugees and Asylum Seekers

The links below provide an outline of the material for this lesson. Be sure to carefully read through the entire lesson before returning to Canvas to submit your assignments.

Note: You can print the entire lesson by clicking on the "Print" link above.

8.1 Overview

Introduction

In the previous lesson we focused specifically on mobility and migration. In this lesson we spend some time considering a particular group of migrants: refugees and asylum seekers. You will be challenged to compare and contrast refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants, while also considering how flexible or rigid the definition of “refugee” should be. You will also examine a series of maps of refugee locations and be asked to determine any trends in the refugee numbers, as well as any spatial patterns you might see, and the potential policy implications of those trends and patterns.

Objectives

Upon completion of this lesson, you will:

  1. Compare the experiences of refugee and asylum seekers with those of other types of migrants.
  2. Evaluate the social and political position of refugees and asylum seekers within host states with regard to mobility.
  3. Evaluate the differences between environment- and conflict-driven forms of migration for refugees and asylum seekers with regard to host, intermediary, and destination states.
  4. Critique the presumed security implications of countries receiving refugees and asylum seekers against actualized security issues.

Questions?

If you have any questions now or at any point during this week, please feel free to post them to the GEOG 571 - General Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time in Canvas by opening the Lesson 0: Welcome to GEOG 571 module in Canvas.)

8.2 Checklist

This lesson is one week in length. Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates. To finish this lesson, you must complete the activities listed below. You may find it useful to print this page out first so that you can follow along with the directions.

Steps to Complete Lesson 8
Step Activity Access/Directions
1

Read

The lecture notes can be accessed by clicking on the Lesson 8: Mobility II - Refugees and Asylum Seekers link in the Lessons menu on this page.
2

Required
Reading

Berchin, I. I., Balduga, I. B., Garcia, J., Baltazar Salgueirinho Osorio de Andrade Guerra, J. (2017). Climate change and forced migrations: An effort towards recognizing climate refugees. Geoforum, 84, 147-150.

Mence, V. and Parrinder, A. (2017). Environmentally related international migration: Policy challenges. In M. McAuliffe and K. Koser (Eds.), A long way to go: Irregular migration patterns, processes, drivers and decision-making (pp. 317-342). Australian National University Press.

Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in the era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172-192.

Note: Registered students can access the readings in Canvas by clicking on the Library Resources link.

3 Complete the Lesson 8 Discussion Forum. Post your response to the Lesson 8 Discussion Forum in Canvas and comment on classmates' responses. You can find the prompt for the assignment in the Lesson 8 Discussion Forum in the Lesson 8: Mobility II - Refugees and Asylum Seekers module in Canvas.
4 Submit your written brief.  Submit your written brief to the Lesson 8 Written Brief dropbox in the Lesson 8: Mobility II - Refugees and Asylum Seekers module in Canvas.

8.3 Refugees and Asylum Seekers - Defined

In the previous lesson we spent a great deal of time discussing migrants and the different types of migration. We specifically discussed “forced migration,” where individuals are coerced to migrate, which includes asylum seekers and refugees. As evidenced by the title of this lesson, asylum seekers and refugees will be the focus of this week.  First, we should begin with how these two categories of migrants are defined and how they are related to each other.

The definitions of who refugees and asylum seekers are should be relatively cut and dry; however, you’ll find that like with much of what we discuss, this is not the case (even though this is probably one time it really should be quite easy). Generally speaking, both refugees and asylum seekers are persons who are leaving their country of origin and seeking residence in a destination country due to persecution of some kind, violation of human rights, natural disasters, etc. The major difference between asylum seekers and refugees is that asylum seekers are waiting for legal recognition of their refugee status (Amnesty International, 2021).

Refugee status does come with certain legal protections under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Optional Protocol relating to the status of refugees. The 1951 Convention defines a refugee as a person “who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group” (International Justice Resource Center, n.d.). While the Convention and Protocol provide legal for refugees and the rights afforded to them, it does not indicate how a state determines who is a refugee, which has led to differences in how countries determine who is a refugee (International Justice Resource Center, n.d.; Zetter 2007).  That said, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 146 countries signed the 1951 Convention and 146 signed the 1967 Protocol. The number of countries that signed one or both is 149 and are depicted in Figure 1. South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation, gained independence in 2011, and ratified the 1951 convention in 2018. Don’t let the years fool you, though the Refugee Convention and Protocol were written in 1951 and 1967, respectively, countries continue to ratify the contents.

Map of countries that ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol
Figure 8.1 Map displaying the ratifiers of either the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol as of at least 2018.
Credit: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Click here to see the data for the map above
Table 8.1 - Ratifiers of the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol
Country Convention Protocol
Afghanistan 30 Aug 2005 a 30 Aug 2005 a
Albania 18 Aug 1992 a 18 Aug 1992 a
Algeria 21 Feb 1963 d 08 Nov 1967 a
Angola 23 Jun 1981 a 23 Jun 1981 a
Antigua and Barbuda 07 Sep 1995 a 07 Sep 1995 a
Argentina 15 Nov 1961 a 06 Dec 1967 a
Armenia 06 Jul 1993 a 06 Jul 1993 a
Australia 22 Jan 1954 a 13 Dec 1973 a
Austria 01 Nov 1954 r 05 Sep 1973 a
Azerbaijan 12 Feb 1993 a 12 Feb 1993 a
Bahamas (the) 15 Sep 1993 a 15 Sep 1993 a
Belarus 23 Aug 2001 a 23 Aug 2001 a
Belgium 22 Jul 1953 r 08 Apr 1969 a
Belize 27 Jun 1990 a 27 Jun 1990 a
Benin 04 Apr 1962 d 06 Jul 1970 a
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 09 Feb 1982 a 09 Feb 1982 a
Bosnia and Herzegovina 01 Sep 1993 d 01 Sep 1993 d
Botswana 06 Jan 1969 a 06 Jan 1969 a
Brazil 16 Nov 1960 r 07 Apr 1972 a
Bulgaria 12 May 1993 a 12 May 1993 a
Burkina Faso 18 Jun 1980 a 18 Jun 1980 a
Burundi 19 Jul 1963 a 15 Mar 1971 a
Cabo Verde 09 Jul 1987 a
Cambodia 15 Oct 1992 a 15 Oct 1992 a
Cameroon 23 Oct 1961 d 19 Sep 1967 a
Canada 04 Jun 1969 a 04 Jun 1969 a
Central African Republic (the) 04 Sep 1962 d 30 Aug 1967 a
Chad 19 Aug 1981 a 19 Aug 1981 a
Chile 28 Jan 1972 a 178983378.8
China 24 Sep 1982 a 24 Sep 1982 a
Colombia 10 Oct 1961 r 04 Mar 1980 a
Congo (the) 15 Oct 1962 d 10 Jul 1970 a
Costa Rica 28 Mar 1978 a 28 Mar 1978 a
Côte d'Ivoire 08 Dec 1961 d 16 Feb 1970 a
Croatia 12 Oct 1992 d 12 Oct 1992 d
Cyprus (the) 16 May 1963 d 09 Jul 1968 a
Czech Republic (the) 11 May 1993 d 11 May 1993 d
Denmark 04 Dec 1952 r 29 Jan 1968 a
Democratic Republic of the Congo (the) 19 July 1965 a 13 Jan 1975 a
Djibouti 09 Aug 1977 d 09 Aug 1977 d
Dominica 17 Feb 1994 a 17 Feb 1994 a
Dominican Republic (the) 04 Jan 1978 a 04 Jan 1978 a
Ecuador 17 Aug 1955 a 06 Mar 1969 a
Egypt 22 May 1981 a 22 May 1981 a
El Salvador 28 Apr 1983 a 28 Apr 1983 a
Equatorial Guinea 07 Feb 1986 a 07 Feb 1986 a
Estonia 10 Apr 1997 a 10 Apr 1997 a
Ethiopia 10 Nov 1969 a 10 Nov 1969 a
Fiji 12 Jun 1972 d 12 Jun 1972 d
Finland 10 Oct 1968 a 10 Oct 1968 a
France 23 Jun 1954 r 03 Feb 1971 a
Gabon 27 Apr 1964 a 28 Aug 1973 a
Gambia (the) 07 Sep 1966 d 29 Sep 1967 a
Georgia 09 Aug 1999 a 09 Aug 1999 a
Germany 01 Dec 1953 r 05 Nov 1969 a
Ghana 18 Mar 1963 a 30 Aug 1968 a
Greece 05 Apr 1960 r 07 Aug 1968 a
Guatemala 22 Sep 1983 a 22 Sep 1983 a
Guinea 28 Dec 1965 d 16 May 1968 a
Guinea-Bissau 11 Feb 1976 a 11 Feb 1976 a
Haiti 25 Sep 1984 a 25 Sep 1984 a
Holy See 15 Mar 1956 r 08 Jun 1967 a
Honduras 23 Mar 1992 a 23 Mar 1992 a
Hungary 14 Mar 1989 a 14 Mar 1989 a
Iceland 30 Nov 1955 a 26 Apr 1968 a
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 28 Jul 1976 a 28 Jul 1976 a
Ireland 29 Nov 1956 a 06 Nov 1968 a
Israel 01 Oct 1954 r 14 Jun 1968 a
Italy 15 Nov 1954 r 26 Jan 1972 a
Jamaica 30 Jul 1964 d 30 Oct 1980 a
Japan 03 Oct 1981 a 01 Jan 1982 a
Kazakhstan 15 Jan 1999 a 15 Jan 1999 a
Kenya 16 May 1966 a 13 Nov 1981 a
Kyrgyzstan 08 Oct 1996 a 08 Oct 1996 a
Latvia 31 Jul 1997 a 31 Jul 1997 a
Lesotho 14 May 1981 a 14 May 1981 a
Liberia 15 Oct 1964 a 27 Feb 1980 a
Liechtenstein 08 Mar 1957 r 20 May 1968 a
Lithuania 28 Apr 1997 a 28 Apr 1997 a
Luxembourg 23 Jul 1953 r 22 Apr 1971 a
Madagascar 18 Dec 1967 a
Malawi 10 Dec 1987 a 10 Dec 1987 a
Mali 02 Feb 1973 d 02 Feb 1973 a
Malta 17 Jun 1971 a 15 Sep 1971 a
Mauritania 05 May 1987 a 05 May 1987 a
Mexico 07 Jun 2000 a 07 Jun 2000 a
Monaco 18 May 1954 a 16 June 2010 a
Montenegro 10 Oct 2006 d 10 Oct 2006 d
Morocco 07 Nov 1956 d 20 Apr 1971 a
Mozambique 16 Dec 1983 a 01 May 1989 a
Namibia 17 Feb 1995 a 17 Feb 1995 a
Nauru 17 Jun 2011 a 17 Jun 2011 a
Netherlands (the) 03 May 1956 r 29 Nov 1968 a
New Zealand 30 Jun 1960 a 06 Aug 1973 a
Nicaragua 28 Mar 1980 a 178986270.8
Niger (the) 25 Aug 1961 d 02 Feb 1970 a
Nigeria 23 Oct 1967 a 02 May 1968 a
Norway 23 Mar 1953 r 28 Nov 1967 a
Panama 02 Aug 1978 a 02 Aug 1978 a
Papua New Guinea 17 Jul 1986 a 17 Jul 1986 a
Paraguay 01 Apr 1970 a 01 Apr 1970 a
Peru 21 Dec 1964 a 15 Sep 1983 a
Philippines (the) 22 Jul 1981 a 22 Jul 1981 a
Poland 27 Sep 1991 a 27 Sep 1991 a
Portugal 22 Dec 1960 a 13 Jul 1976 a
Republic of Korea (the) 03 Dec 1992 a 03 Dec 1992 a
Republic of Moldova 31 Jan 2002 a 31 Jan 2002 a
Romania 07 Aug 1991 a 07 Aug 1991 a
Russian Federation (the) 02 Feb 1993 a 02 Feb 1993 a
Rwanda 03 Jan 1980 a 03 Jan 1980 a
Saint Kitts and Nevis 01 Feb 2002 a
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 03 Nov 1993 a 03 Nov 2003 a
Samoa 21 Sep 1988 a 29 Nov 1994 a
Sao Tome and Principe 01 Feb 1978 a 01 Feb 1978 a
Senegal 02 May 1963 d 03 Oct 1967 a
Serbia 12 Mar 2001 d 12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles 23 Apr 1980 a 23 Apr 1980 a
Sierra Leone 22 May 1981 a 22 May 1981 a
Slovakia 04 Feb 1993 d 04 Feb 1993 d
Slovenia 06 Jul 1992 d 06 Jul 1992 d
Solomon Islands 28 Feb 1995 a 12 Apr 1995 a
Somalia 10 Oct 1978 a 10 Oct 1978 a
South Africa 12 Jan 1996 a 12 Jan 1996 a
Spain 14 Aug 1978 a 14 Aug 1978 a
South Sudan 01 Oct 2018 a 01 Oct 2018 a
Sudan (the) 22 Feb 1974 a 23 May 1974 a
Suriname 29 Nov 1978 d 29 Nov 1978 d
Swaziland 14 Feb 2000 a 28 Jan 1969 a
Sweden 26 Oct 1954 r 04 Oct 1967 a
Switzerland 21 Jan 1955 r 20 May 1968 a
Tajikistan 07 Dec 1993 a 07 Dec 1993 a
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 18 Jan 1994 d 18 Jan 1994 d
Timor-Leste 07 May 2003 a 07 May 2003 a
Togo 27 Feb 1962 d 01 Dec 1969 a
Trinidad and Tobago 10 Nov 2000 a 10 Nov 2000 a
Tunisia 24 Oct 1957 d 16 Oct 1968 a
Turkey 03 Mar 1962 r 31 Jul 1968 a
Turkmenistan 02 Mar 1998 a 02 Mar 1998 a
Tuvalu 07 Mar 1986 d 07 Mar 1986 d
Uganda 27 Sep 1976 a 27 Sep 1976 a
Ukraine 10 Jun 2002 a 04 Apr 2002 a
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the) 11 Mar 1954 r 04 Sep 1968 a
United Republic of Tanzania (the) 12 May 1964 a 04 Sep 1968 a
United States of America (the) 01 Nov 1968 a
Uruguay 22 Sep 1970 a 22 Sep 1970 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 19 Sep 1986 a
Yemen 18 Jan 1980 a 18 Jan 1980 a
Zambia 24 Sep 1969 d 24 Sep 1969 a
Zimbabwe 25 Aug 1981 a 25 Aug 1981 a
Note: Ratification (r), Accession (a), Succession (d)

Required Reading

Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in the era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172-192.

Note: Registered students can access the readings in Canvas by clicking on the Library Resources link.


Environmental/Climate-Driven Migration


When most think about refugees and asylum seekers, they immediately think of those who are fleeing conflict areas, areas that are war torn, or have particular discriminatory policies. However, with the increasing research surrounding the effects of global climate change, environmental and climatic refugees are becoming a burgeoning and important group of refugees. The relationship between environmental drivers and migration began to be explored in the 1980s by the scholars El-Hinnawi and Jacobson (Berchin et al., 2017; Mence & Parrinder, 2017). The policy issues surrounding climate refugees were not considered widely until around 2006, when the Maldives government drew attention to this group by calling a meeting (Biermann & Boas, 2008). Currently there are no legal avenues for climate refugees to achieve refugee status as there are for other types of refugees, and they are not protected by the 1951 Convention. Here again, as in Zetter’s (2007) research, labels and the perception of those labels become important: the implications of “refugee” versus “displaced person” (Berchin et al., 2017; Mence & Parrinder, 2017).

Many researchers highlight that there have not been many instances where climate change was the only reason for a refugee to migrate, and highlights a few examples from Pacific Islands (Podesta, 2019; Mence & Parrinder, 2017). The fact that environmental and climate change related migration, like with all types of migration,  likely will have multiple causes makes the attempts to define it all the more difficult, and thus complicates the potential applications to policy. How do environmental migrants differ from climate change migrants? Should one group be considered “refugees” over the other?

Required Reading

Berchin, I. I., Balduga, I. B., Garcia, J., Baltazar Salgueirinho Osorio de Andrade Guerra, J. (2017). Climate change and forced migrations: An effort towards recognizing climate refugees. Geoforum, 84, 147-150.

Mence, V. and Parrinder, A. (2017). Environmentally related international migration: Policy challenges. In M. McAuliffe and K. Koser (Eds.), A long way to go: Irregular migration patterns, processes, drivers and decision-making (pp. 317-342). Australian National University Press.

Note: Registered students can access the readings in Canvas by clicking on the Library Resources link.


References

Amnesty International. (2021). Refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrants [1].

Berchin, I. I., Balduga, I. B., Garcia, J., and Baltazar Salgueirinho Osorio de Andrade Guerra, J. (2017). Climate change and forced migrations: An effort towards recognizing climate refugees. Geoforum, 84, 147-150.

Biermann, F., and Boas, I. (2008). Protecting climate refugees: The case for a global protocol. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(6), 8-17.

International Justice Resource Center. (n.d.). Asylum and the rights of refugees [2].

Mence, V. and Parrinder, A. (2017). Environmentally related international migration: Policy challenges. In M. McAuliffe and K. Koser (Eds.), A long way to go: Irregular migration patterns, processes, drivers and decision-making (pp. 317-342). Australian National University Press.

Podesta, J. (2019, July 25). The climate crisis, migration, and refugees [3]. Brookings.

Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in the era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172-192.

8.4 Mobility and Decision Making

Refugees and asylum seekers are often faced with the same factors and decisions as other migrants when deciding if, when, and where to migrate. As with any decision to leave a place, it is multi-faceted and complex and deals with a combination of push and pull factors at their origin, destination, and intermediary locations (Czaika, 2016; McAuliffe, 2017; Hatton & Monoley, 2017). While this section cannot enumerate all of the many facets of the decision making process that refugees and asylum seekers go through, this lesson hopes to provide a cross section of research to allow you to begin to think critically about the multi-faceted decisions of these migrants.

Czaika (2016) reminds us that in addition to taking into account the current situation, potential refugees and asylum seekers must also take into account “...other social and economic aspects as well as the ‘opportunity costs’ of leaving behind and potentially losing their belongings...and beloved ones.” While refugees and asylum seekers in Australia often cited a combination of security and non-security related issues contributing to their decision to migrate, migrants also left in search of better educational facilities, better health service, and more economic opportunities, and chose Australia because of Australia’s reputation for good hospitality towards asylum seekers (McAuliffe, 2017). Other cited attributes of desirable locations for asylum seekers include a peaceful locale, higher incomes, and employment opportunities (Hatton and Moloney, 2017). An interesting point McAuliffe's (2017) research notes is that asylum seekers in Australia cited “a significant security threat or incident triggered their departure.” Those who are younger and perhaps of working age may also be more inclined to migrate (Czaika, 2016).

As with international migrants, Czaika (2016) also finds that networks are also important in decision making and can make the decision to move easier, especially in helping to decide where to migrate. Social media has increased the ability to create networks that provide information on host nations and experiences of other migrants to help inform refugee and asylum seeker decisions, though access to this social media networking capability varies geographically with some African migrants possibly having a reduced access to such capabilities (Merisalo & Jauhiainen, 2021; Dekker et al., 2018). Those with access; however, identified that social media and smartphones were helpful in route planning, learning about access to countries, choosing a destination, and keeping in touch with those at a country of origin (Dekker et al., 2018). This, however, is a rosy view of social media and smartphones—it does have its pitfalls, as it can be rife with misinformation and an ability to be tracked, they also require internet connection (or mobile service), a battery, and a mechanism for charging said battery (Dekker et al., 2018). Despite the pitfalls, social media, the internet, and smartphones do influence refugee and asylum seekers before and during their travel about where they should go and how to get where they are going. Recall that different countries have different procedures for determining whether or not an asylum seeker meets the definition of a refugee, and these networks help provide insight into which countries may be more or less stringent, potentially influencing decision making.

Distance is also a factor in a migrant’s decision making, especially if there is an intention to return home. Thus, neighboring countries often receive many refugees and often “shoulder a disproportionate burden” over other nations (Czaika, 2016). That, however, isn’t to say that this is always the case. Some migrants use these neighboring countries as springboards to locations further away, as evidenced Ludwig’s (2013) work with Liberian refugees in the United States, who sometimes used refugee camps in neighboring countries as an intermediate location to gain refugee status elsewhere. In addition, refugees may also choose a host nation based on the presence of a social network: friends, family, etc. At times, these migrants may choose to remain in a transit location because of the presence of known family and friends who can help support (Simich et al., 2003). The decisions these refugees make throughout their journey also can help speak to their experiences in their host nation, which is the focus of the next section.


References

Czaika, M. (2016). Refugee movements. In J. Stone, R. M. Dennis, P. S. Rizova, A. D. Smith, and X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and nationalism (pp. 1-5). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dekker, R., Engbersen, G., Klaver, J., and Vonk, H. (2018). Smart refugees: How Syrian asylum migrants use social media information in migration decision-making. Social Media and Society, 4(1), 1-11.

Hatton, T. and Moloney, J. (2017). Applications for asylum in the developed world: Modeling asylum claims by origin and destination. In M. McAuliffe and K. Koser (Eds.), A long way to go: Irregular migration patterns, processes, drivers and decision-making (pp. 227-254). Australian National University Press.

Ludwig, B. (2013). “Wiping the refugee dust from my feet”: Advantages and burdens of refugee status and the refugee label. International Migration, 54(1), 5-18.

McAuliffe, M. (2017). Seeking the views of irregular migrants: Decision-making, drivers and migration journeys. In M. McAuliffe and K. Koser (Eds.), A long way to go: Irregular migration patterns, processes, drivers and decision-making (pp. 103-140). Australian National University Press.

Merisalo, M. and Jauhianinen, J. S. (2021). Asylum-related migrants’ social-media use, mobility decisions, and resilience. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 19(2), 184-198.

Simich, L., Beiser, M., and Mawani, F. N. (2003). Social support and the significance of shared experience in refugee migration and resettlement. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(7), 872-891.

8.5 Refugee and Asylum Seeker Experiences in their Host Country

Refugees and Asylum Seekers for better or worse have made the decision to leave their country of origin and move to their destination country (whether this is a distant destination or a neighboring country, and includes settling in refugee camps). This decision brings with it a variety of experiences, and these experiences are often unique to the individual and unique to their host nation. Perceptions of experiences in host nations are often included in the decision making process above. This section does not wish to diminish the individuality of those refugee and asylum seeker experiences, but merely to provide some insight into general experiences of these individuals and provide a cross section of the multidisciplinary research that has been conducted in this vein.

As we have discussed extensively in this course, discourse and labels matter, and the terms “refugee” and “asylum seeker” bring with it benefits and drawbacks both to an individual’s identity and their experiences in their host countries. The benefits of the legal term “refugee” include that the individual cannot be returned to their country of origin if their life is in danger, and in the United States many refugees have access to national programs, such as food stamps and worker’s permit, to help them get settled (Ludwig, 2013).

Refugees and asylum seekers are typically already under stress; however, they also experience “anxiety and depression” (Strang & Quinn, 2019). While these stressors differ from other immigrants, some may be similar, such as the potential of difficulty communicating due to different language or culture. Even the label “refugee” can be difficult, due to the unintended drawbacks that come with the label's status. Refugees can be stigmatized at times, especially as they can be viewed as “helpless,” “dependent,” and possibly a “resource drain” (Ludwig, 2013). Ludwig (2013), however, recognizes that this stigma may differ by a refugee’s country of origin, finding that “Liberians and other Black” refugees are often seen as an “economic burden.” This intolerance is not unique to Liberians and other Black refugees in the United States, but has also been found with Syrian Refugees in Lebanon, who experienced “multilevel intolerance,” including but not limited to perceived prejudice, stereotypes, perceived discrimination, and scapegoating (Kheireddine et al., 2020; Strang & Quinn, 2019). The label of “refugee” can also make it difficult to integrate into their host country’s society from a variety of perspectives: socially and economically. They struggle with the question: When is it ok to stop being called a refugee? (Ludwig, 2013) Which also begs the question: Is this only the decision of the refugee?

These generalized trends of the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers does not take into account that these experiences often also differ by gender. While this strand of refugee experiences has not been widely researched, the research that has been conducted does indicate that more research should be conducted. Strang and Quinn (2019) researched the experiences of single Afghan and Iranian men in Scotland. Their research, complementing Robertshaw et al.’s (2017) research demonstrating that female refugees were able to share their emotions more freely with friends; while the male refugees in Strang and Quinn’s (2019) research had to redefine their identity to allow them to emotionally connect.

These labels the refugees and asylum seekers are given, are not just present to them, but also to immigrants: both authorized and unauthorized. Media (including social media and news programs) often play a part in how members of the host nation view these groups. Murray and Marx (2013) noted in their research from participants along the U.S.-Mexico border region that there are differences in how individuals in host nations view threats associated with an immigrant based on the label they are provided, with unauthorized immigrants being seen as being a larger perceived threat to overall welfare than authorized immigrants. While threat perception towards authorized and unauthorized immigrants was impacted by generational differences, this effect does not appear in attitudes towards refugees, where participants were overall positive about refugee resettlement programs (Murray & Marx, 2013).

This positivity that Murry and Marx (2013) found in the United States towards refugees and asylum seekers is not shared worldwide, with researchers finding that nations in the European Union are generally less positive (Crawley et al., 2019). A poll from 2016 shows that many people in European Union countries believe that refugees will increase terrorism and be a burden on the country (Wike et al., 2016). In addition, scale (there’s that word again) is also important here. Variations in attitudes also can vary regionally and even between rural and urban areas, as evidenced by Crawley et al.’s (2019) work denoting regional differences in attitudes towards asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, as well as more positive attitudes in urban versus rural areas of the UK.

Much of the research surrounding host nation attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers, as with other immigrants, identifies the importance of “intergroup contact” and “reciprocity” to create positive interactions and attitudes, where individuals from the host nation and refugees meet and interact (Crawley et al., 2019; Strang & Quinn, 2019). While this “intergroup contact” can be helpful in attitudes towards refugees in their host nations, it is also important to keep in mind the refugee’s network: friends, family, and/or the existence of communities with cultural similarities, as they can be an incredibly important source of support for refugees. If refugees are placed in areas where they have no support, they may make the decision to take on additional hardships and move to another place, possibly even within the host country, where they would have access to such a support network. This was found to be true of refugees in Canada, who even chose to stay in transit locations or migrate again to be closer to a support network (Simich et al., 2003). While there may be factors that compel a refugee or asylum seeker to stay in a transit point, there are also factors that may compel refugees to continue their journey to secondary destinations. One such study looking at Eritrean asylum seekers in Italy found that asylum seekers may decide to continue to secondary destinations due to “National differences in the quality of the reception system, in welfare policies, and in labour market opportunities” (Brekke & Brochmann, 2014).

Moral of the research review: the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees are varied and complex. They vary by the individual, by the group, by the origin, by the destination, by the individuals and groups in the destination, by the policies of the destination, and the list could go on forever. However, as evidenced by this section, there is a large body of research into the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers, how to potentially improve their experiences, and what policies influence those experiences.


References

Brekke, J., and Brochmann, G. (2014). Stuck in transit: Secondary migration of asylum seekers in Europe, national differences, and the Dublin Regulation. Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(2), 145-162.

Crawley, H., Drinkwater, S., and Kausar, R. (2019). Attitudes towards asylum seekers: Understanding differences between rural and urban areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 71, 104-113.

Kheireddine, B. J., Soares, A. M., and Rodrigues, R. G. (2020). Understanding (in)tolerance between hosts and refugees in Lebanon. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 397-421.

Ludwig, B. (2013). “Wiping the refugee dust from my feet”: Advantages and burdens of refugee status and the refugee label. International Migration, 54(1), 5-18.

Murray, K. E., and Marx, D. M. (2013). Attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants, authorized immigrants, and refugees. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(3), 332-341.

Robertshaw, L., Dhesi, S., and Jones, L. L. (2017). Challenges and facilitators for health professionals providing primary healthcare for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMJ Open, 7(8), e015981.

Simich, L., Beiser, M., and Mawani, F. N. (2003). Social support and the significance of shared experience in refugee migration and resettlement. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(7), 872-891.

Strang, A. B., and Quinn, N. (2019). Integration or isolation? Refugees’ social connections and wellbeing. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 328-353.

Wilke, R., Stokes, B., and Simmons, K. (2016). Europeans fear wave of refugees will mean more terrorism, fewer jobs [4]. Pew Research Center.

8.6 Security Implications of and for Refugee and Asylum Seekers

In the previous lesson, we investigated security issues surrounding migrants: internal and international. While refugees and asylum seekers are considered international migrants as well, there are some unique considerations that surround refugees and asylum seekers, especially given the conditions surrounding their migration and the legal protections afforded them upon successful completion of the refugee process. This section is not meant to be an all encompassing review of the literature surrounding security and refugees and asylum seekers, but a snapshot.

Security Threats to Refugee and Asylum Seekers


Refugees and asylum seekers are facing real threats in their points of origin that directly threaten their lives and livelihoods. They are often faced with a variety of security threats while they are leaving their points of origin, while in transit, and even at times when they reach their destinations. We discussed in the previous sections the decisions of refugees and asylum seekers to seek a secondary destination to find better support, which also includes better security support and safety (Loescher, 2002). Some refugees face sexual abuse, robbery, resource availability, and possibly death among many threats (Loescher, 2002). These security threats are rarely discussed, especially in countries that neighbor the states refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing from; more often than not, what is reported are the potential/alleged security threats generated by refugees and asylum seekers (Loescher, 2002)

“Security Threats” of Refugee and Asylum Seekers


The term security threats was placed in quotations in the title of this section purposefully.  That is not to say that there are no security threats caused by the presence of refugees and asylum seekers, but in some cases they are exaggerated.

Loescher (2002) identifies direct and indirect threats and perceived threats of refugees and asylum seekers. There are some direct security threats that destination countries may face by accepting refugees and asylum seekers into their countries; however, a lot of these threats are felt by countries that neighbor or are in close proximity to the countries of origin.  Loescher (2002) discusses “spillover conflict,” where conflicts do not stop at the border but follow the refugees to their destinations and the use of refugee camps by “combatants” posing as refugees. There are also perceived indirect threats that Loescher (2002) indicates, such as the fear of potential ethnic conflict due to protracted refugee presence and the thought that refugees and asylum seekers bring threats of terrorism with them. Alderman (2002) however notes that “...there is virtually no evidence linking global terrorism with refugees,” especially in the context of refugees seeking acceptance in Canada and the United states. What Alderman (2002) means is that terrorists are not likely to use the refugee process, as it requires providing a significant amount of information, increasing the risk of exposing terrorists.


References

Adelman, H. (2002). Refugees and border security post-September 11. Refuge, 20(4), 5-14.

Loescher, G. (2002). Blaming the victim: Refugees and global security. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 58(6), 46-53.

8.7 Written Brief Assignment

Scenario

You are a humanitarian analyst covering the ongoing conflicts surrounding Uganda. You are provided with the following three maps:

  • Refugees and asylum seekers - Uganda as of 01 July 2016 [5] (PDF)
  • Refugees and asylum seekers - Uganda as of 01 April 2017 [6] (PDF)
  • Refugees and asylum seekers - Uganda as of 31 July 2021 [7] (PDF)

and the following article:

  • Uganda stands out in refugees hospitality - Africa Renewal [8] (PDF) with some basic information on Uganda’s refugee policies.

Registered students can use the following link to access an interactive set of the Refugee and Asylum Seekers maps [9].

Click here to see a table of the data for the refugees and asylum seekers maps
Uganda Refugees and Asylum Seekers
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Adjumani

138,471
City:
Adjumani

223,739
City:
Adjumani

230,134
% of
Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
South Sudan 1 South Sudan 1 South Sudan 229,780 99.9%
Sudan 236 0.1%
Democratic 
Republic
of Congo


68


0.0%
Eritrea 6 0.0%
Ethiopia 4 0.0%
Burundi 3 0.0%
Kenya 2 0.0%
Rwanda 2 0.0%
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017  
City:
Arusa / Koboko

33,377
City:
Aruso

144,054

 
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:

 
South Sudan 1 South Sudan 1  
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


2
  July 31, 2021

 

 
City:
Bidibidi

239,141
% of
Total

 

 
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
South Sudan 238,977 99.9%

 

 
Sudan 103 0.0%

 

 
Democratic 
Republic of 
Congo


66


0.0%

 

 
Burundi 1 0.0%

 

 
Congo, Republic of the
1

0.0%
July 31, 2021
   
 
City:
Imvepi

70,183
% of
Total
 
   

 
 
 
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
South Sudan 68,751 98.0%
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1,422


2.0%
Sudan 23 0.0%
Central African
Republic

1

0.0%
Chad 1 0.0%
Senegal 1 0.0%
United
Republic of
Tanzania


1


0.0%
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Kampala

75,233
City:
Kampala

93,445
City:
Kampala

93,179
% of
Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Somalia 33,705 37.0%
Somalia 2 Somalia Tied - 2 Democratic
Republic of
Congo


26,177


28.7%
Other
Nationalities

3
Other
Nationalities

Tied - 2
Eritrea 15,899 17.4%
South Sudan 4 South Sudan 3 South Sudan 6,150 6.7%
Burundi 5 Burundi 4 Burundi 4,675 5.1%
Rwanda 6 Rwanda 5 Ethiopia 2,521 2.8%
Rwanda 2,053 2.3%
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Kiryandongo

53,238
City:
Kiryandongo

51,052
City:
Kiryandongo

72,279
% of Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
South Sudan 1 South Sudan 1 South Sudan 71,517 99.0%
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


312


0.4%
Sudan 226 0.3%
Kenya 152 0.2%
Burundi 38 0.1%
Rwanda 26 0.0%
Somalia 3 0.0%
April 1, 2017
 
 
City:
Kisoro

304

 
 
 
 
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
 
 
 
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Kyaka II

27,651
City:
Kyaka II

24,612
City:
Kyaka II

125,431
% of
Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


119,367


95.2%
Rwanda 2 Burundi 2 Burundi 3,601 2.9%
Burundi 3 Rwanda 3 Rwanda 2,397 1.9%
South Sudan 27 0.0%
Kenya 15 0.0%
Ethiopia 11 0.0%
Somalia 9 0.0%
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Kyangwali

43,312
City:
Kyangwali

45,805
City:
Kyangwali

127,908
% of
Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


123,837


96.7%
South Sudan 2 South Sudan 2 South Sudan 3,497 2.7%
Rwanda 578 0.5%
Burundi 104 0.1%
Kenya 11 0.0%
Somalia 7 0.0%
Sudan 2 0.0%
July 31, 2021
 
 
 
 
City:
Lobule

5,758
% of
Total
 
 
 
 
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


5,755


99.9%
South Sudan 3 0.0%
April 1, 2017
 
 
 City:
Moyo

148,598
 
 
 
 
 
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
 
 
 
South Sudan 1
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Nakivale

113,039
City:
Nakivale

125,540
City:
Nakivale

139,821
% of
Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


71,788


51.4%
Burundi 2 Burundi 2 Burundi 40,751 29.2%
Somalia 3 Somalia 3 Somalia 13,908 9.9%
Rwanda 4 Rwanda 4 Rwanda 10,439 7.5%
Other
Nationalities

5
Other
Nationalities

5
Eritrea 1,745 1.2%
Ethiopia 936 0.7%
South Sudan 224 0.2%
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Oruchinga

7,252
City:
Oruchinga

5,483
City:
Oruchinga

8,266
% of
Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


4,443


53.8%
Rwanda Tied - 2 Rwanda 2 Rwanda 1,981 24.0%
Burundi Tied - 2 Burundi 3 Burundi 1,811 21.9%
South Sudan 31 0.4%
July 31, 2021
 
 
 
 
City:
Palabek

57,408
% of
Total
 
 
 
 
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
South Sudan 125,775 98.9%
Sudan 275 0.4%
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


64


0.1%
July 31, 2021
 
 
 
 
City:
Palorinya

125,641
% of
Total
 
 
 
 
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
South Sudan 125,536 99.9%
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


61


0.0%
Sudan 34 0.0%
July 31, 2021
 
 
 
 
City:
Rhino

127,574
% of
Total
 
 
 
 
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
South Sudan 122,137 96.6%
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


3,389


2.7%
Sudan 838 0.7%
Rwanda 49 0.0%
Burundi 27 0.0%
Central African
Republic

12

0.0%
Kenya 10 0.0%
July 1, 2016 April 1, 2017 July 31, 2021
City:
Rwamwanja

53,8111
City:
Rwamwanja

64,256
City:
Rwamwanja

76,844
% of
Total
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:
Country
of Origin
:

Number:
% of
Total
:
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


1
Democratic
Republic of
Congo


76,398


99.4%
Rwanda 225 0.3%
South Sudan 160 0.2%
Burundi 55 0.1%
Kenya 7 0.0%
Central African
Republic

3

0.0%
United
Republic of
Tanzania


2


0.0%
April 1, 2017

 
City:
Yumbe

272,163

 

 

 
Country
of Origin
:

Rank:

 
South Sudan 1

    Using the three maps and the article provided above, you must write a written brief for a person going to Uganda to make assessments on what support if any your organization can provide to help the Uganda refugee response efforts. 

     

    Assignment Requirements

    Within your written brief, you must provide the deployer with:

    • What area of Uganda you think would benefit most from additional support, if any. This assessment should be supported by your assessments of:
      • How the Refugee situation has changed in Uganda over time (in terms of total numbers, spatial distribution, and source countries).
      • Any spatial patterns to refugee settlement within Uganda.
      • Your understanding of the refugee situation in Uganda.
     

    Your brief should:

    • Be no longer than two pages (250-500 words,) not including any ancillary graphs, maps, and figures.
    • Follow the basic rules for written briefs provided in the “Writing a Brief [11]” section of lesson 3, including putting your bottom line up front. 
      • Hint: Your main point should be the first sentence of your first paragraph. All of the information that follows should support that main point, in decreasing order of importance.
    • Include citations

    Deliverable:

    When you have completed your written brief, return to the Lesson 8: Mobility II - Refugees and Asylum Seekers module in Canvas and look for the Lesson 8 Written Brief dropbox. The dropbox has instructions for submitting the assignment.

    8.8 Summary and Final Tasks

    Summary

    In this lesson we continued our discussion on mobility by discussing a particular group of migrants: refugees and asylum seekers. In addition to diving into the particular definitions of these migrants and whether or not these definitions of these migrants should be adaptable to global changes, we consider their mobility and decision making during their journeys, as well as their experiences in their host nations. Finally, we close by considering the security threats to refugees and asylum seekers and potentially posed by.

    Deliverable:

    Please return to the Lesson 8 module in Canvas where you will find the Lesson 8 Discussion Forum which contains the discussion prompt and specific instructions for the assignment.

    Please check the Canvas Syllabus or Calendar for specific time frames and due dates.

    Final Tasks

    Complete all of the Lesson 8 tasks

    You have reached the end of Lesson 8! Double-check the to-do list on the Lesson 8 Checklist page [12] to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 9.


    Questions?

    If you have any questions now or at any point during this week, please feel free to post them to the GEOG 571 - General Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time in Canvas by opening the Lesson 0: Welcome to GEOG 571 module in Canvas.)


    Source URL:https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/212

    Links
    [1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/ [2] https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/ [3] https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-climate-crisis-migration-and-refugees/ [4] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-jobs/ [5] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog571/files/images/L08/Refugees_and_asylum_seekers_Uganda_2016.07.01.pdf [6] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog571/files/images/L08/Refugees_and_asylum_seekers_Uganda_2017.04.01.pdf [7] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog571/files/images/L08/Refugees_and_asylum_seekers_Uganda_2021.07.31.pdf [8] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog571/files/images/L08/Uganda_stands_out_in_refugees_hospitality_Africa_Renewal.pdf [9] https://pennstate.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/portfolio/index.html?appid=cd900ac39c404a5bb6cd38770f7246d9 [10] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog571/files/images/L08/8.71_Uganda-refugee-camp-data_MW.pdf [11] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/495 [12] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/214