On Thursday, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for the government to strip a naturalized American’s citizenship simply because he or she lied during the naturalization proceedings. The case, Maslenjak v. United States, concerns an ethnic Serbian woman who, fleeing war and prosecution from Bosnia in the 1990s, was granted refugee status in the U.S. in 1999. In 2007, she became a citizen, despite lying about her husband’s service in the Bosnian Serb military.

The court’s unanimous decision largely hinged on the standard on which the case was argued and ruled on by the lower courts. Namely, that any sort of lie, no matter its causal link or lack there of to the granting of citizenship, is enough to revoke a naturalized American’s citizenship. That is how the Justice Department’s lawyer, Robert Parker, argued the case. Those were the grounds on which a district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled. Both sided with the government.

But the Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed that a naturalized citizen’s rights could be revoked based on an immaterial falsehood. It sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit, allowing it to be reviewed on a different standard.

“We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the unanimous opinion. She continued:

When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result.

The story begins in 1999, when Divna Maslenjak was granted refugee status. An ethnic Serb fleeing what was then known as Bosnia, Maslenjak said Muslims would mistreat her and her husband because of their ethnicity. At the same time Serbs would punish them because her husband, she claimed, evaded military service. In 2007, Maslenjak and her husband were granted citizenship.

It turns out, however, that Maslenjak did indeed lie about her husband’s circumstances; he served in a Bosnian Serb military unit–one that was accused of committing war crimes. A district court judge ruled that Maslenjak’s falsehood warranted a revocation of her and her husband’s citizenships. The Sixth Circuit, in April 2016, agreed. Their citizenship was revoked, and both Maslenjak and her husband were deported to Serbia.

The Supreme Court’s decision vacates the lower courts’ rulings. In unanimously rejecting the government’s assertion that any lie, regardless of its relevance to citizenship, could lead to revocation, the court strengthened protections for naturalized Americans.

In April, during the arguments for the case, the justices seemed perplexed at the government’s position. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts confessed to a past misdeed to make a point. “Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” he said.

If on the citizenship form he answered “no” to the question of whether he had ever committed an offense, Roberts asked Parker, “20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all?” Parker continued to baffle the justices, saying, “If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Furthers Protections for Naturalized U.S. Citizens appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Stories of frostbitten immigrants crossing into remote, unmarked border towns this winter garnered international attention and set conservative Canadians on the warpath, demanding stricter regulation of the border. But the rise of illegal immigration has also led to calls for alterations to (and even the repeal of) the Safe Third Country Agreement, which states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. Many immigrants who were hoping to seek shelter in the U.S. are crossing into Canada illegally because they believe their asylum claims will be denied in the U.S. but upheld in Canada. If the act was repealed or suspended, immigrants could request asylum at official border crossings and enter the country legally.

In the Justin Trudeau era, Americans tend to glamorize Canada as the last moral outpost on the continent but the nation is not quite the united front we assume it to be. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, nearly half of respondents want to send illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border back to the U.S. and a similar number of respondents disapprove of how the government is handling illegal immigration. The subsets that were most in favor of deportation were men, adults without a college degree, higher income individuals, and older individuals. This is by no means a perfect representation of Canadian attitudes. Yet in an era where xenophobia is encouraged and even enshrined by executive orders, it’s important to keep an eye on shifts in public opinion.

The U.S.-Canada border has historically been a “soft” one but as illegal immigration rates climb, Canada appears to be moving slowly toward a more hardline stance. Trudeau has defended proposed legislation that would allow U.S. customs agents to question, search, and detain Canadians on Canadian soil. Trudeau publicly stated in February that the government would not take steps to quell irregular migration–yet by giving more power to U.S. customs agents, he is essentially passing the buck. Policing the border is a cooperative effort between the two countries and if Trudeau steps away from that responsibility, he will be enabling the Trump Administration.

Trudeau met with Trump earlier this year in a carefully coordinated encounter that let Trudeau hold strong on all of his positions without actively attacking Trump. While it is diplomatic common sense not to antagonize an ally, Trudeau could take a stronger stand against the Trump Administration through legislative action–such as scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Trudeau has done outstanding work with the Syrian refugee population, striving to fast-track their entry into Canada so that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have now been granted asylum in Canada–but can he keep it up?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada appeared first on Law Street.

Newton County, Georgia, which bills itself as a center of southern small town charm, is now the site of an ugly dispute over land use as the local Muslim community struggles to build a Muslim mosque and cemetery.

Over the course of several years, the imam Mohammad Islam has built a congregation that now seeks to build a mosque and cemetery on a plot of land in Newton County, purchased by Islam in 2015. He made his plans clear, officially purchased the land, and was ready to build upon the site–until local backlash derailed what should have been a perfectly straightforward construction project. The plans to build the mosque, cemetery, and other affiliated buildings came under fire because they would have been approved without public comment, and an outpouring of protest from the community bolstered by social media led the Board of Commissioners to place a five week moratorium on the construction or the submission of plans for construction of any new religious structures. After the moratorium ends, the Board members will vote on whether or not they will change the zoning rules for religious structures. Ostensibly new zoning would impact any religious building, but thanks to the “Stop the Mosque” campaign and the mass turnout to the public hearings, there is no doubt that the Board is looking to penalize the Islamic community for their proposed structure. There has never been a similar reaction from the community regarding the construction of a Christian building. The objection to the mosque is so clearly prejudiced that federal investigators are looking into investigating the Board of Commissioners.

Comparisons will of course be made to citizens protesting the building of the proposed Park51  Islamic community center at Ground Zero, but comparing these two constructions makes virtually no sense. The proposed mosque and cemetery of Newton, County Georgia is not being built near the site of a massive American tragedy, that must be preserved for historical record. It is not angering locals because they think it disrespects the memory of lives lost (although that logic is flawed in and of itself). In fact, the reason Georgians want to shut down the construction of the mosque and cemetery is because at least some fear it will attract refugees to their community.

Tens of thousands of refugees have been forced from their homes because of uncontrollable violence, shuttled from country to country looking for a safe haven, trying to learn new languages, adjust to a new culture and, above all, contribute and participate in their new communities. The U.S. will not be accepting the same number of refugees that Europe has; our public services and law and order will not be strained under the weight of a population explosion like our European allies. We are accepting and seeking to aid refugees, but we are taking in only a minuscule portion of those who are seeking shelter–and yet, that is still too much for the residents of Newton County.

Never mind that the state of Georgia will be resettling far fewer refugees than states such as Michigan, Illinois and California or that the construction of a single mosque is not in fact what puts a community on the short-list for refugee settlement. Never mind that refugees are seeking to create new lives in which they will become participants in the community, working local jobs, paying county taxes, and sending their children to local schools. What is truly at the core of the objections to the mosque is more than bigotry, it is selfishness. Newton County residents are so afraid of sharing their resources, even land which has been purchased legally for a fair price, that they will not let fellow community members build a simple structure. It seems the refugee population is right to steer clear of them.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Stop the Mosque: Islamophobia in Newton County, Georgia appeared first on Law Street.

The most infamous refugee camp in Calais, France is currently being dismantled by bulldozers, sledgehammers, and axes while its residents clash with police. “The Jungle,” which has existed since 2002, is being razed as conditions have gotten so unsanitary that French authorities can no longer maintain the camp.

The Jungle has been destroyed and rebuilt in the past, but the influx of immigrants over the past year has led to a swell in the population of the camp, making it a much more daunting task to relocate camp inhabitants. There are concerns that, with waves of anti-immigrant sentiment sweeping across Europe, immigrants who leave the Jungle may be vulnerable to violence when they are relocated to other areas. Other smaller “jungles” have emerged in France but none has created the same social networks and infrastructure as the Calais camp. The Jungle may not be sanitary or pleasant but there is a sense of community that will be challenging to recreate once the settlement has been destroyed.

According to The Guardian,

The noise of hammering is everywhere, as refugees knock up basic wooden frames that become, in the space of a day, restaurants and shops, hairdressers and phone-charging booths, arranged along an informal high street. Volunteers from across Europe have built a school, a day-care center for children, a library, a couple of mosques, a church, a refugee advice center, an art therapy tent and medical centers.

As of last month, there were approximately 5,500 migrants living in the Jungle. Over half of these migrants live in the areas of the camp that are currently being destroyed. Inhabitants of the Jungle have taken matters into their own hands, clambering onto roofs and throwing stones at the demolition forces moving through the camp. Multiple young men sewed their mouths shut in protest and a hunger strike was instituted among several Iranian camp residents.

Conditions in the camp are deplorable. The Jungle is located on top of a former toxic waste dump, where fire hazards are plentiful and the close living quarters allow diseases to spread quickly. The French government cannot let the Jungle to continue as it is, yet evacuating the camp leaves thousands of people homeless. Perhaps if there was some sort of guarantee that these refugees would not be attacked once they left the camp, there would be more cooperation in relocating to new camps. However, after arson attacks on refugee camps in Germany, moving to an unknown camp–where there are no well-established social networks and protections–feels like condemnation for many of the refugees.

The Jungle operates by the same code that slums across the world have used for centuries–it is dangerous and unsanitary, but for the people who live there, there is a form of safety that comes from community. Unfortunately, the sheer size of the camp, which is the reason it has created a diverse, thriving community, is exactly what has doomed the camp to destruction. Ultimately, 5,500 people cannot live in such a small geographic area without compromising sanitation and resources. There is no clear solution to end the protests in the Jungle, as both the French officials and the protesting migrants have valid motivations for their actions. However, the police forces’ use of tear gas and hoses does not serve the interests of either side. As French use of force escalates, refugees are responding in kind, mutating the Jungle from a safe haven to a “war zone.”

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post “The Jungle”: Riots in the Calais Refugee Camp appeared first on Law Street.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are fleeing war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan, making a perilous journey to Europe. For those who arrive in Europe, the reality may not be much better as the European Union, already struggling to stay together amidst financial issues, is now faced with one of the greatest migration crises in history. Meanwhile, in the United States, known for its history of immigration, the question of what can be done to help is gaining attention. Read on to learn about immigration history in the United States, what it has done so far, and what it can do in the future to assist Europe and the migrants risking their lives to make it there.

History of Immigration in the United States

The United States takes pride in being a nation of immigrants, from its initial colonization through several waves of immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first big wave of immigrants came to the United States in the mid-19th century, consisting largely of Irish and German migrants fleeing famine and blight in their own nations. The arrival of new people to the United States was not universally welcomed. Because many of the immigrants who came during this period were Catholic, anti-immigration sentiment emerged among many American Protestants who feared the rise of Catholicism in the United States. Another wave of immigrants came during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This group was comprised of Southern and Eastern Europeans such as Italians and Russians. Opposition to the changing U.S. population proved lasting, affecting several different policy decisions in Congress.

Laws Limiting Migration

As large waves of immigrants came to the United States, Congress enacted several new laws to manage, and most notably, limit, the flow of people. The first was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which outlined who was allowed to become an American citizen. While the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed free white people to become citizens, the Naturalization Act of 1870 expanded to include people of African descent, but still prohibited people from other places of origin. Many early U.S. immigration policies attempted to restrict the flow of immigrants from Asia. For example, there was the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, which was later repealed in 1943.

The most notable change to the U.S. immigration policy came in the 1920s when Congress passed the Johson-Reed Act. The act, passed in 1924, established a quota system that limited the number of immigrants of each nationality to the levels present in the 1890 census. This effectively restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and stopped immigration from Asia–seeking to prevent changes to the racial composition of the population. Finally, in 1965, Congress passed another immigration law, which established the visa system that the United States has today, doing away with the formal quota system. This law sought to focus on reuniting families and allowing skilled immigrants to live and work in the United States. The law also allowed for a notable increase in immigrants from countries in Asia.

How to Enter the United States

Despite the various changes to U.S. immigration policy in the 1900s, becoming a citizen or even coming to the United States remains an arduous process. Currently, there are several ways one can become a citizen or live in the United States temporarily. The first is family-based; a person can come to the United States if they are a child, direct relative, or spouse of someone who is already a citizen.

Second is the visa system, which can be broken down into temporary and permanent categories. Foreign nationals can receive temporary visas for tourism, business, or education. For long-term visitors, the U.S. government can issue a green card giving them permanent resident status if certain conditions are met. There is also a diversity program that encourages immigration from countries with low levels in the United States, in an effort to attract the best and brightest from around the world.

Refugees

Refugees are also a large part of the yearly immigration total in the United States. Following WWII and the passage of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, approximately 650,00 people were admitted from war-torn Europe. In subsequent years, additional waves of refugees settled in the United States, often escaping oppression from their home governments. The Cold War led to a notable rise in refugees to the United States, particularly after the Vietnam War.

Congress passed the Refuge Act of 1980, which standardized the definition of who is a refugee and how he or she can be resettled within the country. Every year, the president and Congress decide how many refugees the country will accept and from where they will come. Since 1975, roughly three million refugees have been permitted to settle in the United States. The number of refugees accepted annually has ranged from 207,116 in 1980 to 27,100 in 2002.

The Migrant Crisis

What’s Going on in Europe

Before we get to the United States’ role in the current crisis, let’s first go over what is going on in Europe and the Middle East. The immigration crisis affecting Europe is unlike anything the region has ever seen. So far, 350,000 people have migrated to the continent, dwarfing last year’s record high of 219,000 people. Many of the migrants come from Syria where a civil war has caused over four million people to flee the country. More than 2,800 have died while attempting to cross the Mediterranean this year alone.

The massive influx of migrants has created a significant problem for the European Union, which so far leaders have failed to properly address. For more information about the crisis in Europe check out Law Street’s explainer as well as the video below.

Refugees in the United States

According to the U.S. Department of State, a refugee is, “someone who has fled from his or her home country and cannot return because he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” For any refugee, the first step is to apply for refugee status with the United Nations in the country where he or she is seeking asylum. Even if a person is granted protected status, there is no guarantee that he or she will be accepted in the United States (there are as many as 15 million worldwide). The idea behind admitting refugees is often to provide a temporary home until they can return to their own countries. While few refugees are admitted, even fewer are allowed to stay somewhere permanently.

Current U.S. Efforts

So far, the United States’ primary contribution has come financially–America has given Europe $4 billion in aid to combat the crisis. However, when it comes to accepting migrants, the United States has come up short. Many of those fleeing to Europe are Syrians, trying to escape a civil war in their homeland. Nonetheless, the quota allotted to Syrian refugees was just 1,500 until recently. On September 10, the Obama Administration called for the United States to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian immigrants in the next fiscal year, which starts October 1.

Some non-profits have called for a much higher number. The United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants believes the United States should accept as many as 100,000 migrants from Syria in addition to 70,000 to 100,000 immigrants from other countries. This has stirred debate in Congress, where some Republican members are worried that allowing more Syrian refugees could increase the threat of terrorism. The following video outlines the U.S. government’s actions so far in this crisis:

Illegal Immigration in the US

Another consideration for the United States is the number migrants already inside the country. As of right now there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants–of those, around 50 percent are from Mexico. Illegal immigration remains a hot-button issue for the U.S. government, making its willingness to help Europe even more complicated. When you factor in the population already here, the likelihood of the United States accepting a large number of Syrian refugees is not very high.

 Conclusion

The current migration crisis in Europe threatens to overwhelm the European Union, which is struggling to handle so many people. Europe’s inability to control the influx has led to a wide range of criticism. Many are now looking for the United States to step up its involvement in the crisis. So far the United States has given a significant amount of money to help alleviate some of Europe’s problems, but it has done relatively little in terms of accepting refugees. The recent announcement to accept 10,000 Syrians will certainly help, but given the number of refugees fleeing Syria and other conflict-torn countries, both the United States and Europe will need to do more.

People attempting to migrate to the United States, even refugees, face an array of requirements that make the process difficult. Couple that with fears of terrorism and the existing immigration problem facing the United States, and it seems unlikely that it will fill its historic role as the home of last resort. Whatever the United States decides to do, it and the European Union must move quickly, as pressure continues to mount.

Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: 5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the US

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

Additional 

HSTRY: A History of Immigration in the USA

CNN: European Migrant Crisis

France 24: Hungary to Return Economic Migrants to Where They Came From

American Immigration Council: How the United States Immigration System Works

Refugee Council USA: History of the US Refugee Resettlement Program

US Department of State: Refugee Admissions

The Economist: Migration from Europe

New York Times: As European Crisis Grows, US Considers Taking in more Syrians

Voice of America: US Pledges to Accept More Migrants

INQUISITR: 29 countries accepting refugees from Syria and the Middle East

Center for Immigration Studies: US Immigration Population Record 41.3 million in 2013

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Role in Solving the Migrant Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

The European migrant crisis isn’t going away anytime soon. Although it has only recently become a hot topic, the number of migrants passing into Europe has been on the rise for the past five years. After a storm of tragedies this summer, the EU’s immigration problem has become an important issue for Europe and even the United States. Unfortunately, it has been a season of all questions and few answers. But recently, European leaders have shown some willingness to address the issue.

Recent Tragedies

On August 28, the bodies of 71 smuggled migrants were found in the back of an abandoned truck near Vienna, Austria. The victims included 59 men, eight women, and four children. This incident led to a strong backlash against human traffickers. Austria’s interior minister, Johanna Mikl-Leitner, released a statement saying, “This tragedy is a concern for us all. Smugglers are criminals. They have no interest in the welfare of refugees. Only profit.” Around the same time, a fishing boat and smaller boat sank off the coast of Libya, claiming the lives of approximately 150 migrants.

On September 2, the lifeless body of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi was found by a Turkish policeman on the shore of Bodrum, Turkey. The Dogan News Agency captured the scene. An image of the Kurdish toddler face down in the sand instantly went viral– resonating with people around the world. Aylan Kurdi’s body was found after boats sank off the coast of the Greek Island of Kos. His five-year-old brother and mother were also among the dead. Teema Kurdi, his aunt, applied to sponsor the family’s entry to Canada, but was denied due to missing documents.

On the same day, September 2, migrants trying to cross from Greece to Macedonia clashed with police at the border. The police, permitting groups of 50 people at a time, inadvertently separated loved ones. In a panic, migrants rushed the border resulting in a scene of chaos. The confrontation is only the latest of several clashes at the Greece-Macedonia border.

Where are the Refugees and Migrants Coming From?

So far, 2,800 people have died in the Mediterranean this year while attempting to make it to Europe. Why are so many people putting their lives at such risk?

The Middle East

Syria has, by far, the largest dispersed population trying to find shelter in EU countries. As many as 4.1 million Syrians have fled the country since the start of its civil war in 2011 and another 7.6 million are displaced, but remain within the country’s borders. Syrians account for a little over half of the 381,000 migrants and refugees that made it to Europe this year. The EU had an estimated 210,000 asylum applications from Syrian nationals between July 2014 and July 2015.

Large areas of Syria are under the control of the Islamic State, which has further displaced a large portion of Syrians. The overwhelming amount of violence and instability in the country has caused hundreds of thousands of Syrians to leave their homes. ISIS controls several large cities in both Syria and Iraq, including Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul.

The two other countries from the Middle East that contribute to the migrant crisis are Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are undergoing violent conflict. According to the latest figures, 32,581 Afghans traveled to the European Union through the East Mediterranean and 29,245 Afghans traveled through the West Balkans in 2015. Even though Iraqis only account for four percent of the influx of immigrants into the EU, the number is on the rise.

Africa

A large portion of the migrants leaving Africa come from Eritrea, where the oppressive rule by President Isaias Afwerki has caused hundreds of thousands of Eritreans to leave their homes. A recent report from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found that an estimated 5,000 Eritreans leave the country each month.

Most other African immigrants come from Somalia as well as several countries on the west coast–including Nigeria, Gambia, and Senegal. In 2014, 80 percent of African immigrants choose Libya as a gateway to the EU. The road is extremely dangerous–filled with kidnappers, corrupt smugglers, and inadequate transportation. Some boats aren’t even designed to make it all the way to their destinations but embark hoping that a merchant ship, fishing boat, or Coast Guard from an EU country will find them.

Refugee vs. Migrant

Migrants must first make the perilous journey to the EU, but then what happens when they arrive at its door? Upon arrival, migrants cannot simply walk in; they must go through a legal process before entering.

According the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” For example, Syrians and Eritreans can most easily make the case for refugee status due to, respectively, the Syrian civil war and the Afwerki regime.

Refugee status is vital. Under this protection, a person can apply for political asylum or protected status according to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Even more importantly, once someone reaches Europe and is granted refugee status, he or she cannot be forced back to his or her original country. This is a pivotal point in international law.

The term migrant is more inclusive and is applied to anyone traveling to another country for any other reason than escaping political persecution and war. Migrants often seek better opportunities by leaving impoverished countries, but they aren’t offered the same protection as refugees. Governments are legally allowed to deport migrants without legal papers.

The influx of people arriving in Europe today are mostly refugees, but not all. Both refugees and migrants take the same dangerous routes, often at the hands of human traffickers.

Where are the Migrants and Refugees Going?

381,000 refugees and migrants have reached Europe so far this year, but the distribution among EU countries is unequal. Many pass through Greece and Italy temporarily on their way to a further destination. 244,000 migrants and refugees have landed in Greece this year, almost two-thirds of the total that have reached Europe.

Among all EU countries, Germany has seen the highest number of asylum applications. This year, between January and June, Germany had 154,000 migrants seeking asylum, more than twice the number during the same period last year. The other countries receiving a relatively high number of asylum applications are France, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, and Hungary.

The situation has caused significant problems for many EU countries. According to the New York Times, there have been over 200 direct attacks on migrants in Germany this year. Violence from locals in Italy forced police to evacuate refugees and migrants at its reception centers. Hungary built an 110-mile razor-wire fence along its border with Serbia to keep refugees and migrants out. Hungary also shut down a major train station in Budapest, stopping asylum seekers trying to travel to Germany and Austria.

Greece, which is going through its own financial crisis, is struggling to provide assistance in its overwhelmed reception centers. Macedonia was forced to declare a state of emergency on August 20 in order to try and stabilize its border regions.

Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey feel the strain on their resources more than most as neighboring countries of Syria. Jordan currently hosts more than 630,000 Syrian refugees, in addition to others from Palestine and Iraq. The unemployment in Jordan has increased sharply and locals fear future consequences of more refugees. Lebanon is in the middle of its own political crisis and now has one refugee for every four people. Although Turkey has the strongest economy in the region, the massive influx of refugees is beginning to deplete available resources. Together, the three countries host more than four million Syrians.

According to the European Union’s Dublin regulation, the first country that a migrant steps foot on must take responsibility for him or her. Naturally, southern countries, like Italy, claim they suffer the worst of the burden; however, Germany, France, and Britain claim most of the migrants continue to their lands.

Many migrants avoid staying in the first country of entry, seeking a secondary country deeper in Europe in violation of the Dublin regulation. This creates a challenge for the European Union because once a person is inside the EU, they can freely travel between member-states in the Schengen zone. This area consists of 26 EU countries that have eliminated border controls.

What’s the Solution?

Previous attempts at solving the crisis have been relatively fruitless. In June, EU leaders shot down the first quota system initiative in favor of having countries voluntarily accept refugees and migrants. The initial summit, held in Brussels, dedicated more time to trying to stop illegal migration, rather than determining the best way to handle the influx of asylum seekers. By July, the EU announced it had fallen short of its voluntary distribution goals by 8,000 people, and the numbers have only increased. Additionally, some blame popular nationalist and anti-immigration platforms, which are increasingly gaining traction in the EU, for various countries’ unwillingness to provide aid.

However, European Union leaders are currently working on a new plan to more equitably distribute migrants throughout the region. Each EU country will be designated a certain number of refugees to host based on a 160,000 total. Greece, Hungary, and Italy will be exempt from the system since each country already hosts so many refugees. Britain, Ireland, and Demark are also exempt from European asylum policies based on the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Several countries, most notably Germany, have independently announced that they will increase the number of migrants that they will accept. While these announcements are a step in the right direction, most leaders acknowledge that an EU-wide system is necessary to appropriately deal with the issue.

U.S. Involvement

Up until September, the U.S. has been silent on the resettlement issue. Although the U.S. has been a leader in providing financial aid to Syria, it has only taken in 1,500 Syrians since the start of the war. President Obama recently made headlines by pledging to house 10,000 Syrians in the upcoming fiscal year, beginning in October.

Conclusion

Clearly, the EU needs a united, comprehensive plan; the situation cannot remain as it is. Countries like Turkey and Italy will soon burn out their resources completely. Helping refugees isn’t any one country’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the world. The ongoing summit will be crucial in deciding the fate of so many. And it is high time the United States got involved. America is a global leader in humanitarian assistance and needs to contribute its fair share. The welcoming of 10,000 refugees is an important step.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

UN Refugee Agency: Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response – Mediterranean

Additional

NPR: The Migrant Crisis, By The Numbers 

The Economist: Everything You Want to Know about Migration Across the Mediterranean

BBC: The Lisbon Treaty

BBC: Syria Iraq

BBC: Why is EU Struggling With Migrants and Asylum?

Brookings: Why 100,000s of Syrian Refugees are Fleeing to Europe 

CFR: Europe’s Migration Crisis

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to Mediterranean

The Guardian: European Leaders Scrap Plans for Migrant Quota System

The Guardian: Hungarian Police Arrest Driver of Lorry that had 71 Dead Migrants Inside

The New York Times: About 150 Migrants Feared Dead After Boats Sink Off Libya

The New York Times: Eritrea

The New York Times: Migrant or Refugee? There Is a Difference, With Legal Implications

The New York Times: Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000

The New York Times: Which Countries Are Under the Most
Strain in the European Migration Crisis?

Time: Migrants Rush Macedonian Border as Chaos Separates Families

UNHCR: The 1951 Refugee Convention

The Washington Post: Iraqis join an intensifying flow of refugees to Europe from Turkey

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the location of cities controlled by the Islamic State as well as the location of African countries where migrants have fled.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Migrant Crisis Continues: What’s Going on in Europe? appeared first on Law Street.