Are the Categories of Migrants and Asylum-Seekers Sufficient to Deal with Current Crises?

This assignment will aim explore the question; are the categories of migrants and asylum-seekers sufficient to deal with current crises?  

Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia presenting European leaders and policymakers with an enormous challenge, this political is reshaping migration trends in Europe. The number of illegal border-crossing detections in the EU started to surge in 2011. The most recent along the EU's maritime borders has been attributed to the growing numbers of Syrian, Afghan, and Eritrean migrants and refugees.^[1] The International Organization for Migration calls Europe the most dangerous destination for irregular migration in the world. Over the last 20 years, it is likely that more than 60,000 migrants have embarked on fatal journeys around the world,’^[2]

It's crucial today with so much media and political attention that we understand  the terms migrant, asylum seeker and refugee as each have distinct meanings. Confusing them completely leads to problems for those respective populations because these groups are entitled to different levels of assistance and protection under international law.

Al Jazeera announced recently that it wasn’t going to refer anymore to the Mediterranean “migrant crisis”, instead it would call it a “refugee crisis”. More than 72,000 have now signed a petition on Change.org urging the BBC to use the term “refugee crisis” instead of “migrant crisis”.^[3] Malone 2015

“As Europe debates the best way to deal with the rising crisis on the Mediterranean, we must be clear: most of the people arriving by sea in Europe are refugees, seeking protection from war and persecution,” ^[4] António Guterres

Definition of migrant; they choose to move not because of a direct threat or persecution but mainly to improve their lives. Whereas refugees are people fleeing armed conflicts or persecution, refugees are protected by international law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention. The distinction is important for governments, since countries handle migrants under their own immigration laws and processes. A migrant can return home; a refugee cannot because it is unsafe. An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim has not been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs. While the application is in process, the person is still an asylum seeker. Not every asylum seeker will be recognised as a refugee; [due to evaluation of the application] however it is worth pointing out that every refugee is initially an asylum seeker. A vital part of being recognised as a refugee is Refugee Status Determination (RSD), a legal process that governments or UNHCR use to determine whether a person seeking international protection is considered a refugee under international, national or regional law^[5].However, one person’s motives may change in nature and in importance when deciding to migrate. So, categorising individuals as “economic migrants” or “asylum seekers” will not always reflect the complex reality of people’s intention and aim of why they are making the journey perhaps conflict, natural disasters or economic The difficulty faced by the media when reporting is volume and the speed in which reports are shared. When the media reports on thousands of people crossing borders, it would be impossible to identify who are migrants and who are seeking asylum.  So perhaps, it should be accepted that reports refer to migrants and asylum seekers, rather than refugees; as we have already established that if someone has been granted refugee status that have already sought asylum. It makes a difference how the media reports on these issues, because the media can change public opinion and that in turn can influence (even force) political change, as these terms have different definitions, rights, and, responsibilities not only for the individual but also for the receiving county clarity is key.

We will explore the case study of Alyan Kurdi, in order to see how the media affects public opinion on immigration. We will use the story of Alyan because since 2011 the images and reports we have seen have mainly covered mass migration and the suffering of many. Whereas the image of Alyan Kurdi was of one child, so all the reports and coverage related to Alyan death.

September the 2nd 2015 a shocking image was published of a Syrian boy, aged three years old, washed up on the beach near Bodrum, Turkey. Turkish news agency DHA (Dogan Haber Ajansi), published a report detailing the loss of twelve Syrians along with fifty images at 8:42am. Less than two hours from the story being published, Michelle Demishevich (journalist and activist) selected Alyan’s  image from the fifty and responded by posting a tweet (via twitter) sharing Aylan’s image with hash tags linked to ‘refugees’ and ‘Syrian refugees welcome’. It gained momentum, within twelve hours the image of Alyan had hit 20 million screens globally.  

There was a detailed investigation into how pictures of three-year-old Alyan galvanised the global conscience. The findings revealed how social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, and searching on Google, can suddenly change the very language of the debate on immigration.

‘This research provides concrete evidence of the ways in which this image framed the biggest story of 2015, the flight of Syrian refugees to Europe’ [Wardle 2015].

The response to the image of Aylan caused a global outpouring of support and a dramatic increase in international concern over the refugee crisis, but surely this is inaccurate as previously established it should be the migrant and asylum crisis, one could argues as the word migrate means move, perhaps it would be more fitting when reporting on it as a ‘migration crisis’ as that will capture all. French President, François Hollande, said that the picture must be a reminder of the world's responsibility regarding refugees^[6]. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, said he felt deeply moved by images of Kurdi^[7]. Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, commented on the photographs of Kurdi and described the refugee crisis as a ‘human catastrophe’ and found the pictures ‘absolutely shocking’^[8]. The image of Aylan caused a surge in donations to charities helping migrants and refugees, with one charity, the Migrant Offshore Aid Station,^[9] [MOS] recording a 15-fold increase in donations within 24 hours of its publication. However, the reports, and as stated by the MOS donations, were being collected for both refugee and migrant, yet it is clear from the definition that actually these are very different.

The haunting image of Alyan was of one child and one family, however the media framed the picture so the world saw a global issue. Had the reporter who first tweeted,[ interestingly an activist and journalist], fully defined the context around Alyan and reported on their status this could have affected the response. As previously stated refugee status cannot happen until after the asylum seeker application has been processed. So those fleeing should be called migrants (if applicable) or asylum seekers, however in the case of Alyan ‘refugee’ was at the forefront of all the media reports.  There was no mention of parental responsibility or questions why the family were leaving a safe country (Turkey) It is worth mentioning Aylan’s father had previously tried to seek asylum in Canada, however, the application was denied as they did not met the criteria for asylum seeker, as they had already moved to Turkey and been living and working in Turkey.  

The public Alyan and the reports and then associated it fully as a refugee crisis and blamed the world for the shocking image of a boy who had tragically drowned at sea. The image of Aylan Kurdi has increased the immigration debate on open and closed borders.  Those who are in in agreement with open borders have promoted the image of Alayn using it as a symbol of the refugee Syrian crisis (sadly, Aylan did not consent, there is another debate about the ethical  implications of using an image of boy drowned at sea as a political symbol). Whereas, those who are against open borders and call for tighter control have questioned the validity and accuracy of the image and the framing of the story. Australian MP Cory Bernardi, defending the need for systems to control borders, commented on the blurring of the term refugee and responded to the image:

‘that that terrible image was not brought about by recent events in Syria or Iraq, that boy and his family had lived in Turkey for three years…. The money for that boy’s father to pay the people smugglers was sent from Canada’^[10].

Reporting using the term refugee can cause unrest, as stated earlier, if someone has been granted refugee status they are then protected and entitled to economic support under international law. This in itself leads countries to debate and discuss their own policies on immigration due to the economic impact and the questions are being asked to why so many are migrating.