Suchergebnisse

The experiences of unaccompanied young migrants and refugees challenge the idea of a common European asylum policy but also show that traditional welfare typologies used to account for differences in welfare across states fail to account for the lived experiences of this group. They do not consider the shifting categorizations of young migrants in institutional terms, nor how the stratification of their social rights plays out over place and time. Moreover, current welfare typologies give inadequate attention to the increasing intersection of the labour market and opportunities for regularization, the relative importance and role of the state in the welfare mix, and the nexus of access to welfare and immigration enforcement. This article draws on qualitative longitudinal research in England and Italy to argue that rather than experiencing welfare through the lens of Liberal (England) versus Conservative or Mediterranean (Italy) regimes, unaccompanied young migrants and refugees in these countries are better understood as navigating different systems of 'iron rod welfare' and 'colander welfare'. In England, the nexus between welfare and legal status is policed by an iron rod on one side of which exists a plethora of social rights, but on the other the risk of a proactive detention and deportation regime. In Italy, meanwhile, the holes of the colander denote gaps in protection but also possibilities to navigate alternative welfare strategies independently of the state. The ability to act independently of the state is an important but under-theorized capability for this population, for whom the state is a more ambiguous actor than is traditionally considered in European social policy.

This book examines the factors affecting the health and wellbeing of young people as they transition to adulthood under the shadow of migration control. Drawing on unique longitudinal data, it illuminates how they conceptualize wellbeing for themselves and others in contexts of prolonged and politically induced uncertainty. The authors offer an in-depth analysis of the experiences of over one hundred unaccompanied young migrants, primarily from Afghanistan, Albania and Eritrea. They show the lengths these young people will go to in pursuit of safety, security and the futures they aspire to. Interdisciplinary in nature, the book champions a new political economy analysis of wellbeing in the context of migration and demonstrates the urgent need for policy reform.

"Policing Humanitarianism examines the ways in which European Union policies aimed at countering the phenomenon of migrant smuggling affect civil society actors' activities in the provision of humanitarian assistance, access to rights for irregular immigrants and asylum seekers. It explores the effects of EU policies, laws and agencies' operations in anti-migrant smuggling actions and their implementation in the following EU Member States: Italy, Greece, Hungary and the UK. The book critically studies policies designed and implemented since 2015, during the so-called 'European refugee humanitarian crisis'."--Bloomsbury Publishing

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the PETI Committee, aims to update the 2016 study "Fit for purpose? The Facilitation Directive and the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants". It takes stock of and examines the latest developments that have taken place since 2016, specifically the legislative and policy changes, along with various forms and cases of criminalisation of humanitarian actors, migrants' family members and basic service providers. The study uses the notion of 'policing humanitarianism' to describe not only cases of formal prosecution and sentencing in criminal justice procedures, but also wider dynamics of suspicion, intimidation, harassment and disciplining in five selected Member States – Belgium, France, Greece, Hungary and Italy. Policing humanitarianism negatively affects EU citizens' rights – such as the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. When civil society is effectively (self-)silenced and its accountability role undermined, policies to combat migrant smuggling may be overused and give rise to serious breaches of the EU's founding values, notably the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. Moreover, policing humanitarianism negatively affects wider societal trust and diverts the limited resources of law enforcement from investigating more serious crimes.

There is a widespread, and growing, expectation that no matter where a person seeks asylum, comparable procedures and consistent standards of fairness will be applied in assessing their claim under the Refugee Convention. Initial findings from a three-year study by researchers at the University of Exeter examining asylum determination procedures in the UK has found that there are considerable differences between the hearing centres where asylum applicants' appeals are heard, and significant inconsistencies in the practice of judges who decide such appeals. These findings have important implications. Inconsistencies in procedure undermine faith in the fairness of legal processes, and a reduced perception of fairness could result in further appeals, as appellants seek to challenge what feels like an unjust decision. Lack of adherence to procedures in particular could lead to erroneous decision making, with the grave consequence that asylum seekers may face forcible return, to face persecution or serious harm. Adapted from the source document.

Vulnerable groups' direct experiences and impressions of British courts and tribunals have often been overlooked by politicians and policy makers (JUSTICE, 2019). This paper takes a geographical, empirical approach to access to justice to respond to these concerns, paying attention to the atmosphere of First Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal hearings to explore the qualitative aspects of (in)access to justice during asylum appeals. It draws on 41 interviews with former appellants and 390 observations of hearings in the First tier immigration and asylum tribunal to unpack the lived experiences of tribunal users and to identify three ways in which the atmosphere in tribunals can constitute a barrier to access to justice. First, asylum appellants are frequently profoundly disorientated upon arrival at the tribunal. Second, appellants become distrustful of the courtroom when they cannot see it as independent of the state. Third they often experience the courtroom procedures and the interactions that take place as disrespectful, inhibiting their participation. These insights demonstrate how the concept of 'atmosphere' can illuminate legal debates in valuable ways. Additionally we argue that legal policy making must find better ways to take vulnerable litigants' experiences into account.