Introduction
For the last decade international community has experienced vibrant movements of migrants and refugees. However, the international laws surrounding human rights and migration cannot provide a valid framework to adequately address these developments. Moreover, political pressure and rising levels of identity crisis contribute to the establishment of an environment filled with xenophobia and fear, “in which security has in some cases become the primary rationale underpinning rapidly changing migration policies” (Popescu & Libal, 2018, p. i). The profession of social workers acts as an advocate for the human rights of refugees and migrants in education and practice. This paper would focus on the identification of limitations of conventional social work practice in the dealings with refugees and migrants and suggest possible alternative and progressive approaches.
Evaluation of Conventional Social Work
The social issue of migrants and refugees was fueled by various violent conflicts, natural disasters, and difficulties with survival. In detail, these factors include the ongoing armed conflict in Syria, Central and South America’s civil unrest, violent movements, and drug wars that affected the situation (Popescu & Libal, 2018). Simultaneously, famine, poverty, and conflicts in some of the African regions such as Eritrea, Yemen, and Sudan, along with the volatile postwar condition of Afghanistan and Iraq, had a significant impact on the issue (Popescu & Libal, 2018). Consequently, according to the statistics from the UN, the number of forced migrants rose sharply and, by the end of 2017, reached 68.5 million people (UNHCR, 2017). The people that were initially displaced accounted for 40 million out of the given number and had a certain degree of international protection, while 28.5 million crossed international borders in search of a refuge (Popescu & Libal, 2018). These 28.5 million people could be further categorized as 3.1 million asylum seekers and 25.4 million refugees.
On the other hand, political reconfigurations in terms of nationality and citizenship could be attributed to the increase in the number of stateless people. As a result, people’s rights are not recognized, and they become extremely vulnerable as they “navigate between the interstices of a nation-state system” (Popescu & Libal, 2018, p. i). Nonetheless, to address this global migration, numerous governments started to revise their migration policies adding new layers of restriction.
Limitations Addressing the Issue
However, this approach is questionable as increasing the protection of the forced migrants would have been more humanitarian. Furthermore, according to the research by Greider (2020), instead of following international human rights and humanitarian standards, numerous governments shaped their asylum policies based on discretionary political decisions. This restrictive approach toward immigration policies threatens the option of following resettlement programs for refugees. This is evident in the statistics of 2017, where a significant reduction of 54% in resettlement requests by UNHCR occurred in comparison to the previous year (Popescu & Libal, 2018). The effect of such population movements will result in long-term and most likely negative implications.
As the attempts of governments to respond to the waves of forced migrants were ad hoc and commonly with unjust policies, United Nations became an important institution in mitigating the negative implications. UN made an attempt to establish migration as a global issue and discuss the strategies to properly address it at New York Summit (Popescu & Libal, 2018). Consequently, two strategies were developed, as “Global Compact on Safe and Regular Migration” and “Global Compact on Refugees” (Hansen, 2018).
Limitations in the Shape of Negative Political Response to Immigrants
The nature of these challenges lies in the political reactions within the region of migration. As an example, it is possible to consider the announcement made by Germany in 2015 when the country decided to accommodate 1 million refugees (Popescu & Libal, 2018). However, the new discourse shortly followed with anti-immigrant attitudes and xenophobia, leading to the growth of nationalistic movements in Europe (Polakaw-Suransky, 2017). The majority of EU member countries, despite the high level of liberalism, transformed the subject of migration policies into matters of national security. As a result, the European countries, the United States and Australia determined to transfer border controls to foreign countries with the aim to limit the access of refugees (Peterie, 2018).
Although, it should be noted that not all countries were as adamant about restricting policies. For example, in Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, decided to provide an alternative solution aiming to increase the support of refugees, allocating funds to aid with the integration into the local community (Popescu & Libal, 2018). Simultaneously, the country supported the fight against local governmental oppression and terrorists, which caused forced immigration. Similarly, France utilized the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) and collaborated with UNHCR on vetting asylum seekers on African soil and accelerating resettlement into the mainland (Brice, 2018). This was done to prevent the illegal transportation of immigrants. It is also essential to consider that European and US civil society actors are engaged in the resolution of anti-immigrant sentiments and cooperate with non-governmental and international organizations (Popescu & Libal, 2018). However, the need for greater collaboration and preparation of a qualified workforce for effective interaction with asylum seekers persists.
Radical Restrictionism
The United States provides a wide range of immigrational policies, but its history reflected a similarly wide spectrum of reactions and directions such as xenophobia, opposition, and acceptance of migrants. The policies also reflected the political agenda of the states during the Cold War the country placed priority on immigrants from Eastern Bloc countries and the Soviet Union (Popescu & Libal, 2018). As a result of strong political pressure, the country accepted refugees from Iraq and Southeastern Asia to address the consequences of the country-led war (Popescu & Libal, 2018). However, during the rule of President Donald Trump, the perception of migrations shifted towards radical restrictionism. This could be seen from the president’s public speeches addressing immigrants from Mexico and numerous restrictions that followed his election.
In June 2018, the government resolved to close its borders and limit access to the resettlement programs from such countries as Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Iran (Popescu & Libal, 2018). The restriction systematically does not provide timely due process rights to refugees that claim asylum in the US. Moreover, a zero-tolerance policy introduced by the government separates children, and their guardians and detains them (Popescu & Libal, 2018). The reinterpretation of the “public charge doctrine” is determined to subject immigrants without a permanent residence to punishment for accessing the benefits to which they are legally entitled (Popescu & Libal, 2018). Ultimately, the decision taken by the US government to limit refugee resettlement encourages other countries to implement similar exclusionary policies.
However, social workers and advocates within the US made several actions to address the issue at hand. For example, the Center on Immigration and Child Welfare at New Mexico State University, with its associates, has taken a leading role in the coordination of social work advocacy during the period of zero-tolerance (Popescu & Libal, 2018). Zayas, in his research, commented on the separation of children in the US as “one of the most unconscionable and harmful acts that any society or government can commit” (Popescu & Libal, 2018, p. iv). The National Association of Social Workers in the US similarly addressed the issue, comparing the actions of the government to the weaponization of children as restrictive utility against immigration (Popescu & Libal, 2018).
Another state that is known as an immigrant’s asylum is Australia, where many refugees seek a new home. Castles (2016, p. 391) states that this country has had a “permanent migration model” under which becoming a citizen was easy. These policies were built on the state’s understanding of multiculturalism, which has changed in recent years, and the government is making the immigration standards more strict. Hence, Australia, similarly to other states, is moving towards the radicalization of the national policies regarding migration which can become problematic as the migrants’ rights and the refugees’ attempts to escape violence may be overlooked.
According to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (2017) report, the agency is working toward creating a safer border by strengthening surveillance. However, this report lacks a discussion of the migrant protection practices that the department uses. Finally, Essex (2018, p. 5) states that “Australia has one of the harshest immigration detention regimes in the world, labeled cruel and degrading and a crime against humanity.” The main problems that currently impact this system are violence and lack of adequate medical care provided to the community of migrants. Essex (2018) argues that future policies must be non-violent, prohibiting a large number of refugees from entering this state in a humane manner.
Progressive Approach to Social Work Through Globalization
In the modern globalized world, people that possess wealth and power have the ability to travel around the world with ease while being welcomed at every destination. These people “are highly sought after and in some cases readily change their nominal citizenship for convenience, for financial gain, and to avoid being held too accountable for their actions” (Ife, 2012, p. 74). They refer to themselves as the “citizens of the world” (Ife, 2012). In contrast, refugees, migrants, and asylum-seekers who are either forced to displacement or wish for an improved life quality are discriminated against, coerced, and denied basic human rights. The initial steps to address these negative effects of globalization can be seen in the shape of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various other treaties and protocols (Ife, 2012). Nevertheless, as national rights regimes lose their effectiveness, the need for global citizenship and its solidification through social work practices persists.
The social work practice could be understood as the process to support people, articulating their rights, protect and realizing the said rights. It implies that social work needs to adhere to an international perspective and not be limited to the local and immediate context of the application (Ife, 2012). However, that is not to say that local communities are to be ignored. One of the most significant responses to globalization is the contrasting trend of localization. People perceive that the global economic system does not meet their expectations, fails them, and they try to establish locally-based alternatives. These alternatives could be considered progressive community-based programs that are parochial, exclusive, and racist (Ife, 2012). The role of social workers is to support the former and challenge the latter.
The role of the nation-state is declining in importance; hence social workers need to reevaluate their policy intervention. Social workers have traditionally regarded the issues with the national governments by advocating for the policies and services that promote social justice (Ife, 2012). This approach towards the resolution of the problems needs to be receded in prioritization. As in addressing the issue of refugees and asylum seekers, which is evidently local and requires strong global analysis, activists perceive the problem on the national level (Ife, 2012). Consequently, the problems are seen through attribution to a particular country, such as “Canada’s refugee problem” or “Australia’s treatment of illegal immigrants” (Ife, 2012, p. 77). As long as such discourses are directed towards the local level, progression and improvement are unlikely to follow.
National governments are limited in the available options due to the demands of global markets. However, at the local level, it is possible to set up an economic development cooperative or local currency scheme (Ife, 2012). Currently, the forces which affect the clients of social workers are strongly global, while the experience of life and private troubles remains local. Consequently, the emphasis should be made on approaching the social work practices, including both local and global levels, for the effective resolution of issues. Therefore, an essential capability for social workers should be the understanding of global dimensions of apparently local problems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, currently, the social work practices with regard to refugees and migrants face numerous limitations and difficulties. For example, the difficulties in the agreement between the governments on the way to address the issue. The lack of binding power of the protocols which address the issue could also be included. However, sustainable social work practices are implemented by some countries that try to address the issue in a way that protects the human right of immigrants.
Reference list
Brice, P. (2018) ‘This is saving refugee lives’, Washington Post. Web.
Castles, S. (2016) ‘Rethinking Australian migration.’ Australian Geographer, 47(4), pp. 391–398.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (2017) The Department of Immigration and Border Protection Annual Report 2016. Web.
Essex, R. (2020) The healthcare community and Australian immigration detention: the case for non-violent resistance. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greider, A. (2020). Outsourcing migration management: The role of the Western Balkans in the European refugee crisis. Web.
Hansen, R. (2018). A comprehensive refugee response framework: A commentary. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31(2), 131-151.
Ife, J., 2012. Human rights and social work: towards rights-based practice. Cambridge University Press.
Peterie, M. (2018). Deprivation, frustration, and trauma: immigration detention centers as prisons. Refugee Studies Quarterly, 37(3), 279-306.
Polakow-Suransky, S. (2017). Go back where you came from the backlash against immigration and the fate of Western democracy. New York: Nation Books
Popescu, M. and Libal, K. (2018) ‘Social work with migrants and refugees: challenges, best practices, and future directions’, Advances in Social Work, 18(3), pp. i-x.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR]. (2017). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2016. Web.