No description available.

The thesis focuses on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, released in 1993. The guidelines were designed to address a perceived shortcoming in international refugee law and its domestic applications, namely, the omission of gender-based persecution from the protection of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The omission of gender from the UN Convention had resulted in gender inequalities in the evaluation of asylum claims, inequalities the Canadian guidelines were designed to correct. However, since the inception of the guidelines, critics have dismissed the directives as numerically ineffective, pointing to the low numbers of women requesting asylum on the basis of gender-related persecution. While such a numerical analysis may be useful, the thesis argues it is incomplete. The thesis centres instead on the vital consciousness-raising role played by the guidelines, both domestically and abroad, and on the concrete results engendered by this function in the international realm of women's human rights.

This thesis takes a critical approach to examine recent developments in European asylum and migration policy. Specifically, this research is interested in addressing the emerging paradigm of "migration management" and its impact on the nature of refugee protection and asylum in an integrated Europe. Two approaches are used in this analysis. First, from a functionalist perspective, this work considers how migration management has responded to contemporary realities of international migration. Secondly, from a critical theory perspective, the thesis analyzes how refugee protection becomes subsumed within the broader goals of migration management. This thesis will argue that the paradigm of migration management has effectively shifted the contours of the asylum debate by linking refugee and asylum policy with broader issues of labor migration, illegality and foreign relations. This has resulted in the separation of asylum from territoriality and more broadly, the submersion of the humanitarian considerations to the overarching goals of migration management.

The Refugee Act of 1980 established the first comprehensive U.S. refugee policy. It codified a refugee definition and created the annual consultation process, which requires the president to consult with Congress before determining annual refugee ceilings and resettlement plans. While the Refugee Act of 1980 remains intact, the annual refugee admissions and resettlement plans have changed considerably. The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze this policy to explore its changes from 1980-2018 through the lens of social construction theory. According to this theory, the social constructions of target populations affect policy designs that are adopted with respect to these populations. Policy designs can create and legitimize divisions among different target populations causing some to be perceived and treated as more deserving than others. This dissertation uses a qualitative research design to analyze narratives within presidential proposal documents and congressional hearings that are held as part of the annual consultation process. These documents serve as the data for this dissertation. I undertake a detailed analysis of the documents of one annual consultation process and related congressional hearings for each president in the period between 1980-2018. In these documents and hearings, different policy actors (congressional members, representatives of the executive branch and state and local governments, and other experts) provide testimony and expert opinions on refugee admissions and resettlement. It is in this context that refugees as a target population are constructed and policies to deal with refugees are debated and discussed by various policy actors. To understand these constructions and the context in which they are created, the narrative analysis elements offered by the narrative policy framework are used as a method. / Includes bibliography. / Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2020. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

No description available.

The South African Refugees Act1 makes a distinction between an asylum seeker and a refugee. The Act defines an asylum seeker as “a person who is seeking recognition as a refugee in the Republic”. A refugee on the other hand, is a person “who has been granted asylum” in the Republic.2 The legal position in South Africa is that before a person is recognized as a refugee, he or she is protected by the Bill of Rights to a certain extent. In the case of Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs the Constitutional court confirmed that the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, including illegal foreigners and asylum seekers.3 This means that asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to most of the rights in the Constitution except those specifically reserved for citizens. Practically though, a refugee enjoys more rights than an asylum seeker. It is therefore in the interest of asylum seekers to have their status as refugees determined. The process of applying for refugee status can be a challenge for those seeking refuge in the Republic of South Africa. For applicants coming from non-English speaking countries, language barrier can also present its own challenges. In terms of the Refugees Act, the first application is to the Refugee Reception Officer at the refugee reception office. The application must be made in person.4 When an asylum seeker is deemed fit to qualify for asylum, he or she will be issued with a permit in terms of section 22 of the Refugees Act. The permit allows the asylum seeker to temporarily reside in South Africa until the finalisation of the asylum claim. This permit does not mean that the asylum seeker is already recognised as a refugee. The permit is an indication that the asylum seeker’s application as a refugee is not yet finalised. The application is considered finalised when it has gone through the hearing before the Status Determination Officer and any review or appeal following from that decision. It is the Refugee Status Determination Officer who will grant asylum or reject the application.5 For people applying for refugee status, the determination by the Status Determination Officer may in itself mark the beginning of the process to be repatriated back to the country they were running away from in the first place. An aggrieved applicant can also apply to have the adverse decision reviewed or even lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Refugees Act.6 For as long as the application is still pending, the government cannot deport any asylum seeker. An asylum seeker who enters the Republic of South Africa, either through a port of entry or illegally faces many challenges before he or she could reach a refugee reception office. Those who come in through a port of entry face being turned away by Immigration Officers due to lack of documentation. Often, asylum seekers find it hard to reach the refugee reception offices as there is no co-operation between the Immigration Officers, the South African Police Service and the functionaries in the refugee reception offices. To make things worse, the Immigration Amendment Act has reduced the days from fourteen to five, for asylum seekers without valid documentations to reach any refugee reception office. Since refugee reception offices are located only in five cities in the country, these have conditioned asylum seekers and refugees to stay and make their living in those cities as they are required to make frequent renewal of their permit. The closure of some of the refugee reception offices like the Johannesburg refugee reception office has caused a major concern to asylum seekers and refugees. This persistent closure of refugee reception offices may be seen as a further persecution in the eyes of asylum seekers and refugees. The inability of the different functionaries to differentiate between asylum seekers and economic migrants adds to the problem concerning the process of refugee status determination. Instead of seeking to identify people in need of protection from persecution or events seriously disturbing public order, the process is used as an immigration control and this causes more people to be turned away or returned to countries where their lives may be at risk. The communication between the asylum seeker and all the functionaries of the Department of Home Affairs is very important. The lack of professional interpretation functionaries to help asylum seekers who need interpretation contributes to the problems asylum seekers face. Often, asylum seekers have to provide their own interpreters if the Department is unable to do so. The purpose of the study is to investigate the status determination process from a South African perspective and to make recommendations which will try to resolve the problem(s) identified. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLM

The South African Refugees Act1 makes a distinction between an asylum seeker and a refugee. The Act defines an asylum seeker as “a person who is seeking recognition as a refugee in the Republic”. A refugee on the other hand, is a person “who has been granted asylum” in the Republic.2 The legal position in South Africa is that before a person is recognized as a refugee, he or she is protected by the Bill of Rights to a certain extent. In the case of Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs the Constitutional court confirmed that the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, including illegal foreigners and asylum seekers.3 This means that asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to most of the rights in the Constitution except those specifically reserved for citizens. Practically though, a refugee enjoys more rights than an asylum seeker. It is therefore in the interest of asylum seekers to have their status as refugees determined. The process of applying for refugee status can be a challenge for those seeking refuge in the Republic of South Africa. For applicants coming from non-English speaking countries, language barrier can also present its own challenges. In terms of the Refugees Act, the first application is to the Refugee Reception Officer at the refugee reception office. The application must be made in person.4 When an asylum seeker is deemed fit to qualify for asylum, he or she will be issued with a permit in terms of section 22 of the Refugees Act. The permit allows the asylum seeker to temporarily reside in South Africa until the finalisation of the asylum claim. This permit does not mean that the asylum seeker is already recognised as a refugee. The permit is an indication that the asylum seeker’s application as a refugee is not yet finalised. The application is considered finalised when it has gone through the hearing before the Status Determination Officer and any review or appeal following from that decision. It is the Refugee Status Determination Officer who will grant asylum or reject the application.5 For people applying for refugee status, the determination by the Status Determination Officer may in itself mark the beginning of the process to be repatriated back to the country they were running away from in the first place. An aggrieved applicant can also apply to have the adverse decision reviewed or even lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Refugees Act.6 For as long as the application is still pending, the government cannot deport any asylum seeker. An asylum seeker who enters the Republic of South Africa, either through a port of entry or illegally faces many challenges before he or she could reach a refugee reception office. Those who come in through a port of entry face being turned away by Immigration Officers due to lack of documentation. Often, asylum seekers find it hard to reach the refugee reception offices as there is no co-operation between the Immigration Officers, the South African Police Service and the functionaries in the refugee reception offices. To make things worse, the Immigration Amendment Act has reduced the days from fourteen to five, for asylum seekers without valid documentations to reach any refugee reception office. Since refugee reception offices are located only in five cities in the country, these have conditioned asylum seekers and refugees to stay and make their living in those cities as they are required to make frequent renewal of their permit. The closure of some of the refugee reception offices like the Johannesburg refugee reception office has caused a major concern to asylum seekers and refugees. This persistent closure of refugee reception offices may be seen as a further persecution in the eyes of asylum seekers and refugees. The inability of the different functionaries to differentiate between asylum seekers and economic migrants adds to the problem concerning the process of refugee status determination. Instead of seeking to identify people in need of protection from persecution or events seriously disturbing public order, the process is used as an immigration control and this causes more people to be turned away or returned to countries where their lives may be at risk. The communication between the asylum seeker and all the functionaries of the Department of Home Affairs is very important. The lack of professional interpretation functionaries to help asylum seekers who need interpretation contributes to the problems asylum seekers face. Often, asylum seekers have to provide their own interpreters if the Department is unable to do so. The purpose of the study is to investigate the status determination process from a South African perspective and to make recommendations which will try to resolve the problem(s) identified. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL. M.

The purpose of this thesis is to focus on the impact of the influx of refugees on the European Union taking into consideration the challenges, threats and opportunities that arise from this persistent crisis. The examination of the above-mentioned issue presents and analyzed pertinent findings derived from the relevant literature in the field, ranging from diverse case studies, public statistics, data of European Union institutions as well as NGO's, associations and other entities that have addressed issues of human rights and refugee integration in European Union countries. The thesis discloses how this complex matter, referred to as the "current European refugee crisis" gives rise to complex problems and divergent concerns ranging from Islamophobia, terrorist attacks and threats, economic challenges, cultural conflicts, and social clashes. It concludes that there is a need for new perspectives and strategies for better addressing the long and short term causes and challenges of the European refugee crisis.

Recent policy changes have created a new era of refugee resettlement in Australia. As a result of the introduction of the onshore refugee program, a two-tier resettlement assistance system has developed. This system differentiates between refugees who have been issued protection visas offshore and onshore, and provides considerably less resettlement assistance to onshore-visaed refugees with Temporary Protection Visa (TPVs). The exclusion of TPV holders from resettlement assistance programs and the temporary nature of the visa has prompted this comparative study of the resettlement experiences of two groups of recently arrived refugees. This thesis considers the experiences of recently arrived refugees within the economic, social, cultural and political spheres of resettlement, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the inter-related nature of the resettlement process and the impact of visa category on the integration of refugees in contemporary Australia. Kuhlman’s (1991) model of refugee resettlement, and definition of integration form the basis of the theoretical framework of the thesis. A multiple method approach has been applied to the study and data from the second cohort of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA) was analysed to present a macro level understanding of the resettlement experiences of recent arrivals in Australia. In Adelaide, interviews with key informants and service providers were undertaken in conjunction with a series of in-depth interviews with 10 Sudanese offshore-visaed Humanitarian entrants and 9 Iraqi onshore-visaed refugees, to provide detailed descriptions of the resettlement experience. While the resettlement process is found to be difficult for all refugees, the TPV policy acts to compound the problems and disadvantages refugees face in resettlement. Under these circumstances it is found that TPV holders experience social exclusion during their early resettlement in Australia. The importance of host-related factors on the resettlement experience are therefore found to be extremely relevant in contemporary Australian refugee resettlement. Policies regarding visa conditions, and refugees’ eligibility for resettlement assistance have a significant impact in all spheres of the resettlement process. These findings suggest that the influence of host society policies must be accorded more weight in theories of resettlement, given their ability to extensively influence the resettlement process. Further this thesis presents substantial evidence against the TPV policy and recommends that temporary protection in Australia be reviewed, in order to ensure the social inclusion and successful integration of future refugee arrivals. / http://proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login?url= http://library.adelaide.edu.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=1277761 / Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Social Sciences, 2007

Recent policy changes have created a new era of refugee resettlement in Australia. As a result of the introduction of the onshore refugee program, a two-tier resettlement assistance system has developed. This system differentiates between refugees who have been issued protection visas offshore and onshore, and provides considerably less resettlement assistance to onshore-visaed refugees with Temporary Protection Visa (TPVs). The exclusion of TPV holders from resettlement assistance programs and the temporary nature of the visa has prompted this comparative study of the resettlement experiences of two groups of recently arrived refugees. This thesis considers the experiences of recently arrived refugees within the economic, social, cultural and political spheres of resettlement, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the inter-related nature of the resettlement process and the impact of visa category on the integration of refugees in contemporary Australia. Kuhlman’s (1991) model of refugee resettlement, and definition of integration form the basis of the theoretical framework of the thesis. A multiple method approach has been applied to the study and data from the second cohort of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA) was analysed to present a macro level understanding of the resettlement experiences of recent arrivals in Australia. In Adelaide, interviews with key informants and service providers were undertaken in conjunction with a series of in-depth interviews with 10 Sudanese offshore-visaed Humanitarian entrants and 9 Iraqi onshore-visaed refugees, to provide detailed descriptions of the resettlement experience. While the resettlement process is found to be difficult for all refugees, the TPV policy acts to compound the problems and disadvantages refugees face in resettlement. Under these circumstances it is found that TPV holders experience social exclusion during their early resettlement in Australia. The importance of host-related factors on the resettlement experience are therefore found to be extremely relevant in contemporary Australian refugee resettlement. Policies regarding visa conditions, and refugees’ eligibility for resettlement assistance have a significant impact in all spheres of the resettlement process. These findings suggest that the influence of host society policies must be accorded more weight in theories of resettlement, given their ability to extensively influence the resettlement process. Further this thesis presents substantial evidence against the TPV policy and recommends that temporary protection in Australia be reviewed, in order to ensure the social inclusion and successful integration of future refugee arrivals. / http://proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login?url= http://library.adelaide.edu.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=1277761 / Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Social Sciences, 2007