Author: Adam Dombovari
Asad Makhani: Refugees advise new refugees (Tipsheet in English and Arabic)
In the fall of 2015 Asad Makhani, a student at the University of Alberta working on cultural issues in medicine under the supervision of Professor and Kule Chair Natalie Kononenko, began interviewing refugees already settled in Canada. These were people from Sierra Leone, Bhutan, Cambodia, and other areas of turmoil who had found a new home and a new life in Canada. The goal of this project was to use the experiences of earlier waves of refugees to develop best practices for dealing with the imminent influx of new, Syrian refugees.
In addition to describing their experiences, interview respondents offered suggestions to new arrivals. They stressed that Canada is a great country. At the same time, settling in Canada and establishing a new life is not an easy task. Asked for advice to new arrivals, the respondents offered many suggestions. A synopsis of their suggestions follows in both English and Arabic (translated into Arabic by Bashair Alibrahim):
1) Relax and do not be continually on guard. Canada is a safe country. Nobody is going to hurt you. Nobody is going to kill you. Being on guard can create undesirable barriers.
2) Have confidence in yourself. You can make it. Develop a positive attitude.
3) Plan for a long term stay. The chances of going back are small.
4) Life in Canada is not like life back home. The rules do apply and they will be enforced. For example, if you don’t pay the rent, you will be charged interest and you could lose your apartment. If you don’t pay your electricity or water bill on time, these will be disconnected. There are no excuses. Abiding by the rules is a challenge. But here you know the rules and this is so much better than the chaos back home that forced you to flee.
5) Cultivate your culture, your traditions, your religion, whatever you believe in. Do not discard the good with the bad. Whatever has helped you cope with the struggles that you have already gone through will help you cope with challenges here. The richness of your culture is a gift that you bring to Canada. The skills and talents that come with your culture will help you contribute to the community.
6) Keep an open mind. The Canada you imagined is probably not the same as the real Canada. Ask questions and learn. Ask again until you understand. There is help available. Seek that help. Seeking help does not make you a bad or a weak person. There are agencies that can help and refugees who came earlier can help as well. After you become established, you yourself will have a chance to help others. In the meantime, accept the help that is being offered.
7) Use the system that brought you to Canada and helped you settle here, but do not become dependent on it. It will not always be there for support. Work continuously to improve yourself and your family. You have the opportunity to change lives.
8) Do not expect a hand-out. Do not expect everything to be taken care of for you. Work hard and you will be rewarded. Do not expect to resume the position you had in your home country. Start a new, fresh life in Canada.
9) Language is an issue and learning English is hard. Work at it. Seek help from your community. Remember it’s not only you who has an accent. Canadians also have an accent.
10) Canada is not perfect. There are some racist individuals in Canada and you may run into them. These people may tell you to “go home!” and make other hurtful comments. Remember that racists are in the minority. They are a small number of people. There are more people in this country that want you here than those who don’t.
Asad Makhani is an undergraduate student, and Bashair Alibrahim is a PhD student in the Department of Modern Languages and Cultural Studies at the University of Alberta.
Agnieszka Weinar: Role of media in the portrayal of the refugee crisis (Video)
Dr. Agnieszka Weinar is a Marie Curie fellow at the Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute, Florence, and a Visiting Researcher at Carleton University in Ottawa. Her current research interests address external aspects of EU migration policy and include questions of Europeanization in the EU neighbourhood, global human capital flows, labour migration to the EU, emigration from the EU, return migration, as well as migration and development agenda. She visited the University of Alberta on November 18, 2015, where she gave a public lecture on change and continuity in the European migration policy post-2012.
This video podcast has been co-funded with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this video are the sole responsibility of the organizers and can not be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.
Reza Hasmath: The Ethnic Penalty? European Migrants and Integration in the Labour Market (Video)
Dr. Reza Hasmath is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta. For more information about Dr. Hasmath’s research see his website.
Mojtaba Mahdavi: How should we respond to the rise of ISIS? (Video)
Dr. Mojtaba Mahdavi is the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities (ECMC) Chair in Islamic Studies and an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta. For further information about his research please follow this webpage.
Natalie Kononenko: Refugee narratives. How do folklorists interview refugees? (Video)
Dr. Natalie Kononenko is Kule Chair in Ukrainian Ethnography and Professor of Modern Languages and Cultural Studies at the University of Alberta. For more information about her research please go to this webpage.
Eva Lemaire: Voices of Migrant Minors: Navigating Immigration to France via Education, Social Welfare, and Immigration
Born in Boulogne-sur-Mer, in the North of France, I can catch a glimpse of the English Coast from my childhood-bedroom window, weather permitting. How many migrants have also cast their gaze in the same direction, upon the cliffs of Folkstone or Dover (England), an “El Dorado” seemingly within easy reach?
Currently, due to international politics, Syrian refugees are converging in the North of France, in Boulogne and even more so in Calais, which has long been a fulcrum point for migrant populations. Previously, these cities have received other groups forced to relocate, such as waves of Albanians or Kurdish refugees. However, not all migrants have been, or are, refugees: some are merely seeking a better economic future. Among them are many teenagers traveling alone, separated and cut off from the supports of their immediate families and kinship networks. A movie, Welcome (2009), produced by the French filmmaker P. Lioret, tells the story of Bilal, a Kurdish youth who dreams of reaching England to be with his sweetheart, and to pursue his dream of becoming a famous soccer player. Through my research into Intercultural Education and Language Acquisition in France, before joining the University of Alberta, I have worked with teenagers like Bilal, who leave their countries and families to go to Europe for various reasons, and they have positively impacted me at both a personal and professional level. In what follows, I will share with you a brief theoretical frame for this research, followed by some of their personal testimonies.
I first encountered and began working with these youth in the early 2000s, in Paris and its outskirts, while a PhD student at the Sorbonne (Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle). I was drawn to this research because during that period the French media covered stories on groups of delinquent youth, believed to be “Romanian”, who were vandalising and stealing from parking meters in central Paris, who pickpocketed in the train stations, creating heightened tensions around immigration, linked to a greater sense of insecurity among Parisians. Initially, my research was inspired by a personal interest in better understanding who these kids were: assailants or victims. This led me to embark on a decade-and-a-half of research into a very specific migrant/immigrant population, referred to in France as mineurs étrangers isolés—“separated children.” The lives of these adolescents are caught between two competing logics operating simultaneously within European and French systems: on the one hand, French society must offer them protection, according in particular to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; on the other, these minors are often illegal immigrants, who challenge the system at many levels, including the social welfare system, the education system, the immigration system and sometimes the criminal justice system. Some arrive with post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction issues, and without grade-level education or knowledge of French, to name just a few of the challenges they face.
In order to better understand the complex realities experienced by separated children, I donned both my French-teacher and researcher caps, and set out to work closely on a daily basis with these children for over three years, in the context of a specialized immigrant welcome center—a type of youth shelter—in the suburbs of Paris.
These youth are typically between fifteen and sixteen years of age. Currently, in 2015, it is estimated that there are more than 6000 mineurs étrangers isolés in France, who fit the typology of sociologist E. Etiemble (2002). Her five profiles for these youth include the following: les mandatés (those sent by family to Europe), les réfugiés (refugees), les errants (street youth), les fugueurs (runaways), les exploités (trafficked).
Les mandatés include children and adolescents sent to Europe by their families, to work in Europe and send money back ‘home.’ Through my research, I met many youth who fit this profile—each with a unique story. For example, Djelil (whose name has been changed for reasons of anonymity), embodies the mandatés/mandated. At the time, Djelil, who is from Mali, was a fifteen-year-old boy. He is a solid, respectful, responsible teenager, but he had never been to school, even before arriving to France. He was consistently eager to do everything in his power to fit into French society. He wanted to study and to work, and to make something of himself. He made amazing strides, quickly learning how to read and write, and developing essential numeric literacy. He managed to earn a diploma, and during his practicum worked his way up the line, as a cook in the kitchen of a famous Parisian hotel. Shaojun, a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy, is another good example of the “mandated” youth profile; while quite the opposite of Djelil, Shaojun was emotionally and physically reserved, hardly speaking, despite little verbal interaction, we established a trusting bond that impacted me. He was unable to commit to his studies. The support team suspected that he was busy, nights and weekends, working to pay off his debt to a smuggler. One day, he vanished from the youth shelter. His friends would eventually tell me that he had planned to go to England to live with a cousin. I hope he survived the trip across the Channel, unlike so many who have attempted the crossing. I think of him often and hope he is safe.
Les réfugiés (refugees)—those fleeing wars, conflicts, discriminations or reprisal—include youth such as Yash, a young Nepali. His story is important to understanding what, for some, refugee status means. He was absolutely adamant that he wanted to apply for and be granted refugee status, as a recognition of all that he had endured. This, despite the fact that his caseworker explained to him that this status actually put him more at risk. As he was hardworking, she felt he would be more quickly and easily granted other forms of immigration status. As a refugee his case could more easily be dismissed, at which point he could be deported. Regardless the (im)practicalities, he decided that being awarded refugee status was personally significant and pursued this avenue.
Les errants (street youth) are minors who are already living and spending their time (not all of them homeless) on the streets in their home countries. They arrive to Europe to try their luck in France. In my own research, Abdelkrim, a young Turkish boy, is one such child. He is the youngest of a poor family, and was in constant conflict with his father. In France, despite having fled his father, he did respect and love him and was trying to live up to his expectations. Abdelkrim initially attempted to go to school, and fulfill his caseworkers’s aspirations for him. Drugs and peer pressure eventually disrupted these ambitions.
Les fugueurs (runaways) leave their family homes, and for one reason or another, end up immigrating to France. Here, sixteen-year old Mariam comes to mind. Her father wanted her to marry an imam who was much older than her. An aunt helped her escape. Entrusted to a series of people—handed off from one caretaker to the next—she managed to eventually make it to France.
Les exploités (trafficked youth) are youth who fall into the hands of unscrupulous people, who subject them to violence, prostitution, domestic slavery and other injustices. To me, trafficked youth are embodied by Tomas, a young Romanian, who at the age of thirteen was enticed to go to France with a Romanian human trafficker who promised him employment—easy money. He ended up living in squalor in the Paris suburbs, in housings provided by this man, working for him in a range of jobs: construction, drug trafficking, and organized theft. After time spent in prison, he opted to transform his life and to find legitimate employment working in the construction industry.
KIAS calls on us to reflect on the global refugee crisis in Syria, not to mention migrant populations around the world. Refugees, particularly youth, are so often denied a voice. I will now share with you (through transcription) the voices of youth from my research, to whom KIAS has provided a space to share their life and migration stories, might their experiences individualize and productively complicate the identity of “refugee” and migrant, at this critical juncture. The raw data, originally in French (second language), is translated into English and organized into thematic categories ranging from migration experiences, to obstacles faced, to accomplishments.
Thank you for reading on, to hear from these youth in their own words, which, to my mind, the most interesting part of this blog post.
The journey: Mansour and Djammel’s Trecherous Sea-bound Crossings on Small Boats
Mansour, Malian: “In Mali, I took, let’s say, buses to go to Mauritania. And when I got to Mauritania, I took a boat to go to Spain. That is how I crossed. It [the boat] was small, not too big. (. . . ) The sea, it was rough! And, there were twenty-six of us. We got to Spain. There were already five people who had died… with a [huge] wave… (. . . ) [I stayed in Spain] two weeks, and then I left. Then, I went into a train station to get on a train to France. (. . .) When I got to France, I only had seventeen Euros in my pocket! Actually, [the first] night, I spent the night on the subway. I slept on line 11 until five in the morning”.
Djammel, Mauritanian: “My journey [to France via Morocco and Spain], it takes me two months, about two months. From where I live [in Mauritania], Morocco is right next door. I travelled two hours, three hours. I took the bus… I stayed a bit there because I know people already. I passed through Spain, I stayed a little. (. . .) I worked. I did a month there. I passed by boat. (. . .) A small boat that we hear about…. which falls into water, right! (laughs) I did not fall in. It is all good! I was lucky! [In France, I found myself] in the train station, I had been [directed to a shelter to sleep] by someone. When I got there, I spoke no French, none at all! I saw a black person. I thought he would speak my language. He did not, but then, (. . .) he was the one who took me to the [Malian] shelter”.
Tomas and Djammel Grab the Hands of Social Workers
Tomas, Romanian: “Well, you see, there’s the cops who caught (would catch) me pretty often [for petty crimes]. (. . .) They put me in a shelter, you see, but me, two three days later I was with the others [in the streets]! I didn’t stayed. No! I was [there] for money!”
Djammel, Mauritanian: “[When I arrived in France], I looked for work. For me, I [thought I] was able to work [just] like that, any job. To me, I hadn’t thought [I had to] know stuff. I had not thought all that! Me, I thought only, you give me a job, I do it, that’s all! But, at the shelter, I was told, “no, you are a minor, you cannot work like that.” They explained to me that there’s (charity) organizations and social welfare for children. They were taking care of minors like me. I looked at the address, and I went to see the social workers for children, and they took me in like that.”
Going to school: Djammel and Tomas talk about opportunities and challenges
Context: Many youth arrive with little or no education. In France, the basic education and trade school programs are central to being allowed to stay in France after the age of eighteen and twenty-one (at the latest), when their status as minors no longer grants them the right to stay in France and social assistance ends. At that time, their immigration cases are assessed as adults and if they are granted residency permits, they must be able to earn a living for themselves. Lots of young people perceive access to education as an opportunity. For example, one interviewee explains:
Djammel, Mauritanian: ““When I arrived [at the welcome center], they [showed me my written name] and asked me ‘this is your first name?’ I said “yes”, but I didn’t know that it was my name, that it was my first name! I didn’t know! But now, I first learned to speak French [at the welcome center], to write, to read, then go to school. (. . . ) I was never educated in my country. After arriving in France, I went to school, received my [diploma] in electricity, already there. That’s great for me! (. . . ) I would never have imagined before that I would get to that point!”
For others, agreeing to start or go back to school is more difficult.
Tomas, Romanian: “School, it was tough for me. It wasn’t easy. I didn’t stayed. I left. (. . .) It was too difficult… Well, the practical part, on the building site, I always came in first… Then again, when I would go back to school [for classes, the theoretical part], I came in last! Honestly, it wasn’t worth it! I was not able stay everyday in the classroom to write! Not everyone that works in the construction industry has a diploma… there’s years of practice that allow you to do [your job correctly].”
Educational and Immigration Obstracles : Rohit and Mansour’s Struggles to Complete Diplomas and Find Employment, in Time to Earn Residency Permits
Rohit: “[When I arrived,] the first thing I was told to do was to learn to speak French. I took some courses [at a welcome center]. Then, I wanted to get work painting because I had already done this type of work in India. (. . .) First, I passed a placement exam for high school. And they told me “There is no spot for you here.” After this, I passed [another]e xam [in another training center]. I was accepted, but I didn’t have an employer [which is a requirement of the program]! And then, I was forced to return [to the welcome center]. I stayed [at the welcome center] for another year. (. . . ) That next year, I passed the entrance exam for the painting program. This time, I was able to take the program because a social worker, found an employer for me. (. . .) When I began my training, I received my work authorization. [As for the resident permit], the first time, it was negative. So I told myself I had no luck. (. . .) We appealed [which technically allowed me to stay legally in France while waiting for the answer]. It didn’t work. Then we made an appeal before a court. It took two years. (. . .) I got my diploma. (. . .) But I didn’t have my papers. I couldn’t sleep. (. . .) I didn’t stop. I continued on each time. I asked my boss if I could start another [higher diploma] because I still didn’t have any papers! And the papers, finally, my papers came January 21!”
In a true race against time, Rohit received his residency permit two weeks before his social service coverage, the only real support on which he could count in France, ran out.
Mansour, having been to a Koranic school from the age of three to eight in his home country, was about to take his diploma in France with the hope of getting (passing) it, when he was sent back to Mali by mistake:
Mansour, Malian: « I was not able to take my diploma [exam], because in February, I was sent back to my country. (. . .) It was on the morning (. . .), I walked out of my home to go to my work, without my [identity] papers on me. It was the first time that happened to me. And I get to the bus station, the bus that I take to go to the boss’s place and there was the cops. They arrested a young man. They asked for papers. (. . .) I had nothing on me! I had [not] my passport and the certifications of support with [proof of] the educators’ numbers. (. . .) I had nothing on me! And then, my phone… I had the [social worker’s] number on my phone but the battery was dead. And then, they took me to Vincennes to the immigration detention center… in the police car! Oh sure, they put handcuffs on me, and they immediately had me get into the car! And I am there. I stayed for 24 hours. I tried to call [my caseworker] there. Usually, I know the number off by heart, but I don’t understand, every time… [I was panicking.] It was 70 28 and me, I mixed up each time! (. . .) The next morning, they put me on a plane. It was harsh, huh?! Then, me, I disappeared like that! [At the welcome center], they looked for me everywhere! (. . .) [Back in my country,] I looked for a job, and I worked for five months to pay for the trip. First, I got on the same transportation means again like the first time. I took the same risks again. But when I got to Spain, I called [a caseworker]. (. . .) So that means I came back here [in France]. I looked for a boss. Well, at first, I didn’t find [one]. It was hard because the [school] year had already started…. like, you have to look before you go back to school.”
In Conclusion: Despite Obstacles, Migrant Youth Express Optimism:
Rohit, Indian: “[This country] gave me everything! It helped me! And, it’s not my country, but it accepted me. Like when I arrived, I was all alone. It accepted me like family, wow! Back home, it’s not like that. This country has done more for me than my parents, you see! It helped me every time!”
Djelil, Malian: “I feel well integrated in France. First, France did something for me. I can only be [entirely] grateful… I cannot [re]pay for what it did for me! ”
Djammel, Mauritanian: “I arrived in France. I don’t know their language at all, and then I learned. And then after that, I was never sent to school in my home country. Once in France, I went to school, took my professional qualification in electricity. Already, that, it’s very good for me! And now, today, I work. I have a job. Yes, I have a profession! I pay my rent! So, that’s it. So, what more am I looking for! I still want to give my best! Before I did not imagine I would come this far! I came this far, so, it motivates even more!”
* Thanks to Driss ElKouche for the illustrating drawings and to Germain Richard for translating the original transcripts.
** NOTE: While some of these stories have been rendered more vague in order to protect the identities of the youth in question, in other cases, the details are unknown because of the self-protection mechanisms of these youth and my/the researcher’s unwillingness to break trust by insisting on detailing certain sensitive events/aspects of their life stories.
To learn more about isolated children see the following:
ETIEMBLE, A. (2002). Les mineurs isolés étrangers en France : évaluation quantitative de la population accueillie à l’aide sociale à l’enfance, les termes d’accueil et de la prise en charge. Quest’us. Retrieved from www.infomie.net/IMG/pdf/etude_sociologique_de_madame_etiemble.pdf
LEMAIRE, E. (2013). La place des mineurs isolés dans l’espace scolaire français. Journal du Droit des jeunes, 328, 28-33.
LEMAIRE, E. (2013). La place des mineurs étrangers isolés dans l’espace scolaire français : conséquences sur le rapport à l’apprentissage. Les cahiers du Groupe d’étude sur le plurilinguisme européen, 5. Tiré de : http://www.cahiersdugepe.fr/index.php?id=2429
LEMAIRE, E. (2010). Accès à la scolarisation et parcours d’intégration : l’exemple des mineurs étrangers isolés. Dans J. Goes, L. Cadet & J-M. Mangiante (dir.) Langue et intégration : dimensions institutionnelle, socio-professionnelle et universitaire (pp. 109-122). Berne: Peter Lang.
LEMAIRE, E. (2012). Portraits de mineurs isolés étrangers en territoire français : apprendre en situation de vulnérabilité. Revue internationale de l’éducation familiale, 31-1, 31-53.
LEMAIRE, E. (2011). Intégration et décrochage scolaire chez des immigrants de première génération : analyse des parcours scolaires des mineurs étrangers isolés. Les Cahiers de la recherche sur l’éducation et les savoirs, 10,45-61.
LEMAIRE, E. (2009). Apprentissage du français par les mineurs étrangers isolés : entre intégration et instrumentalisation. Le Français aujourd’hui, 164, 21-31.
LEMAIRE, E. (2009). Conscience langagière, situation d’exil et de traumatisme. Les cahiers METISS, 4(1), 37-48.
LEMAIRE, E. (2009). Politique linguistique et scolaire à l’égard des mineurs étrangers isolés : entre volonté d’intégration et lutte contre l’immigration subie. Dans J. Archibald et S. Galligani (dir.) La langue, un facteur de discrimination? (pp.183-197) Paris: L’Harmattan.
LIORET, Philippe (2009). Welcome [Motion picture].
Dr. Eva Lemaire is an Assistant Professor at the University of Alberta Campus Saint-Jean.
Marie-Anne Coninsx: Refugees: a big challenge for solidarity in Europe and the world (Video)
Marie-Anne Coninsx, Ambassador of the European Union to Canada, visited the University of Alberta on October 28, 2015. This video podcast has been co-funded with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this video are the sole responsibility of the organizers and can not be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.
Jerome Melancon: Hospitality after the Paris Attacks: A #porteouverte for Canada
With shooters and suicide bombers in their midst, Parisians living in the 10th and 11th arrondissements opened their doors to anyone experiencing the same threat. On Twitter, they used the hashtag #porteouverte (#opendoor) to indicate they were willing to be reached by direct message to share their address and welcome strangers in their homes. They expressed and acted upon their solidarity by overcoming the fear that usually divides neighbours and leads to locked doors and closed borders.
At the same moment, as Canadians were learning about the attacks, calls for the government to repeal its plan to welcome Syrian refugees appeared on social media. That the same reaction took place elsewhere (notably in the United States where, since the attacks, Governors have indicated they would refuse Syrian refugees) does not explain or excuse the Canadian reaction any more than fear or shock did. Two weeks after the attacks, just over half of Canadians opposed the plan to welcome the Syrian refugees by the end of 2015. Half of the respondents to the same survey indicated that their opposition was due to the timeline being too tight, but also because no Syrian refugees should be taken in (29%), because 25,000 refugees is too much (10%) or too expensive (8%).
In other words, the movement of solidarity Canadians deployed toward Parisians was accompanied by a movement of exclusion they deployed against Syrians and other groups (which were named Muslims, refugees, or immigrants). The solidarity that emerged from a sense of association and shared threat helped create a sense of community, allowing Canadians to see what they shared with Parisians on the basis of their emotional reaction to the attacks. However, this solidification of a sentiment into acts of community-building, be they limited to semi-public statements expressed on social media a few days following attacks, demanded that limits be drawn to this new community.
The limits to solidarity
After all, similar attacks take place on a regular basis elsewhere in the world, and similar forms of violence are the daily lot of the inhabitants of zones where war and civil war constantly threaten their lives. The urge to turn away when we are not concerned by violence so that we may maintain emotional balance is understandable, as is the need for Canadians to limit their solidarity to those groups with whom they already associate or to the victims of phenomena that may also affect them so that they may preserve their energies and effort. (A sociologist, Gérôme Truc, makes a similar point about the boundlessness of responsibility and the temptation to limit its scope. See Truc, Gérôme. 2008. Assumer l’humanité. Hannah Arendt: La responsabilité face à la pluralité, Brussels: Presses de l’Université de Bruxelles; see also Sidérations. Une sociologie des attentats, forthcoming in January 2016, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.) The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stéphane Dion, pointed out the day after the attacks that Syrian refugees are fleeing the same kind of violence and indeed a much higher degree and frequency of violence than the one-time attacks in Paris. Appealing to our solidarity, he was attempting to overcome the fear that similar attacks might take place in Canada.
However, the fear that is central to the association of Syrian refugees with the members of ISIS – which many of them are fleeing – has its own problematic bases. Sherene Razack explains the process through which men are racialized as Arabic, and confused with Muslims, to “dangerous Muslim men,” a process she names Muslimification (See Razack, Sherene H. 2008. Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law and Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press). To this treatment we can add the complementary process of designation of Arabic men as dangerous through the debates on the veil. The same electoral campaign that led to promises to welcome Syrian refugees was centred on the question of whether women ought to be allowed to cover their face while taking the citizenship oath or while voting (in the latter case, in spite of the possibility to vote by mail). The justification for disallowing the veil in this case (or in any case, as the debate on the Québec Charter of Values displayed) rests on the assumption that women would only wear veils if they are forced to do so by the men in their lives, and so on the underlying assumption that Muslim men are violent oppressors. As a result, some women wear the niqab, for instance, in spite of opposition from the men in their lives. As a result of these processes of exclusion, the Liberal government announced its plan to welcome refugees by March 1 rather than January 1, 2016, it reassured the population that single men would not be accepted to Canada.
Such processes also have an effect on racialized Canadians, whether they immigrated to Canada or were born in Canada (and so never asked to be Canadians), who find themselves associated with terrorists and find out that the majority of Canadians do not believe they will ever be fully Canadian. Coupled with the spotlight on Paris and the absence of reaction to the attacks in Lebanon and Egypt before, and Mali since, such solidarity takes on its opposite meaning for those who are outside of its reach. The exclusion of Syrian refugees thus extends to Canadians.
To reject the refugees would be to punish them for what has been done to them and for what has been done to Canadians – in fact, for what has been done to others with whom they choose to associate themselves. It would also contribute to alienate Syrians, Syrian Canadians, and other groups baselessly thought to be with terrorism who already in Canada.
Solidarity and privilege
The solidification of a community on the basis of solidarity then also depends on the exclusion of those toward whom there is no solidarity. There is a very small step from the exclusion from the community of those who threaten it to the exclusion of those who are thought to be associated with them or might potentially threaten it. In this case, then, we may ask what is being protected by the exclusion of Syrian refugees – when the cost of welcoming these refugees amounts to $1.2 billion over many years, a cost comparable to that of running refugee camps around Syria, which may cost USD 2 million a year for one camp, or USD 362.5 million for 2015 for all of UNHCR’s operations – without offering an end to the status of refugee or guest of those who live imprisoned within the camps.
What is being asked of Canadians – by their government, by the European Union and the United Nations – is not to open their homes or maintain entirely open doors or borders, but rather to meet their responsibilities toward refugees. Of course, the government may have a responsibility to Canadians. However, the need for the Liberal Party to uphold an electoral promise and the corresponding mandate given to it by the population suggest that the Party might have been elected on its basis, whereas a poll showed that in early September of 2015, only 19% of the population favoured the Liberal plan for Syrian refugees over those of the other parties, compared to 24% in favour of the Conservatives’ plan. Such figures are not sufficient to claim a strong need to uphold a promise.
Instead, responsibility may derive from the consequences of the actions of Canadians. The attacks in Paris, Bamako, Beirut, and on a plane leaving from Egypt ought to remind us that Canada is part of a war against ISIS and other terrorist organizations, and that it has taken part in creating the civil war that has led to the displacement of so many Syrians. Solidarity has been accompanied by outrage that France was attacked, and that Canada might thus also be targeted. In expressing such emotions together, in failing to recognize the situation for what it is, and in refusing refugees on these bases, Canada presents itself as a state who will not listen to others who are affected by its actions, who will consider others guilty and never give them the chance to prove themselves to be innocent (as Said once argued about the United States: Said, Edward. 2008. Culture and Resistance: Conversations with Edward Said. Brooklyn: South End Press).
The demonstration of solidarity for Parisians could thus be extended to Syrians, just as they are being associated with ISIS. To demonstrate solidarity is a political action, a choice that can be made, just as Canadians make the choice to associate with France, just as some Canadians make the choice to exclude racialized Canadians and Syrians from those with whom they form a community.
Opening doors on the basis of hospitality
While solidarity does open our doors, it might only open them on the bases of pre-formed communities and pre-existing sentiments of association and belonging. In hospitality we have a value that turns our attention not to those for whom we feel (or come to feel, based on further reflection) solidarity and demonstrate it, but rather to our home, to its reasons for being, and to the space that remains free for others within it. Responsibility is then established not on the basis of what we have done, but of what we can do.
Hospitality demands nothing in return for what is given or received, as it is not based on property or appropriation of what belongs to the other (Derrida, Jacques. 2000. Of Hospitality. Stanford: Stanford University Press). Instead, it disregards belongings and belonging and does not require equality or equivalence. Like friendship, which makes us seek out others and care for them, hospitality emerges from a perception of the others as more worthy of respect and care than we are.
The logic of hospitality, which is both rational and emotional, begins with the premise of an ability to demonstrate respect and care for others. It is a reaction to the presence of persons whose situation (and not their actions) makes them both vulnerable to factors beyond their control (like a traveler – a family member or a stranger – who needs shelter) and venerable as they have endured moral hardships. The logic of hospitality concludes that we must respect and care for those who exhibit these two intertwined parts of humanity, while respecting their autonomy, letting them make their own choices and expecting nothing in return.
For Canadians to open their doors to refugees in general is an act of hospitality, a recognition of the hardships that displaced them and led them to seek asylum or to seek shelter in camps, of the dehumanizing effect of these conditions. If they are to accept Syrian refugees specifically, regardless of their gender or condition, it cannot be because of pictures of dead children and refugees, but rather as a way to assume their responsibility for their actions, both in terms of the war that is being waged abroad and of their treatment of Canadians whom they already racialize and exclude.
Dr. Jérôme Melançon is a Sessional Lecturer in Political Studies and Philosophy at the University of Alberta Augustana Campus. For further information about his research go to this website.
Srdja Pavlovic: Refugees Ante Portas: Reflections on Strategies of Accommodation in the Age of Disposable Life
The ongoing refugee crisis has significant impact on the framework the European Union applies in order to coordinate and develop border management for member states as well as on the migration processes within the EU itself. Established as the EU agency in 2004 and tasked with helping border authorities from different EU countries work together, FRONTEX is seeing its fundamental premises tested and questioned on a daily basis.
In truth, it is nothing new to argue that the idea about the uninterrupted movement of people within the EU has been plagued by contradictions from the early days of the European Union. On the one hand, there is the freedom of movement and a commitment to the protection of human rights. On the other, there are state borders, monetary diktats, and most recently physical barriers (walls and razor wire) preventing refugees and migrants from reaching their desired destinations. For the bureaucrats in Brussels and experts on migration this contradiction had been apparent for some time already. What brought it into our homes and made it front page news was the massive scale of current refugee crisis and the panic with which EU member states responded to it. The outbursts of xenophobia, racism, religious extremism, bigotry and barbarity make Konstantin Kavafi’s statement about early 20th century being the time of bankrupt nations ring true today. Judging by the responses to the refugee crisis ours is the era of disposable life indeed. The spectre of Orbanization is haunting Europe. That is many people draw parallels with past cases of forced population movement in the mid-20th century.
Much like for their early and mid-20th century predecessors, the instrumentalizing of the refugee problem is again the favourite punch-line for contemporary conservative and right-wing politicians and political wannabies in Europe and North America. Once again, they reinforce a manufactured fear of refugees and insist on a distinction between refugees and economic immigrants.
The danger of such fear and distinction is real and visible all around us, both in Europe and North America. We see it in stereotypes advanced in the media in the form of the VDD complex: Victimization + Demonization + Discrimination. In Europe, and in the United States the VDD complex dominates discussion about refugees. In Canada, less so. Let me touch upon some of the elements of the VDD complex.
A desire to establish oneself and provide for one’s family is viewed by some as a predatory economic tactic. Today, refugees are being portrayed by many as a danger to local economies. We hear warnings about possible rise in criminal activities, about gradual loss of identity, painful demographic changes, and similar fear-inducing topics. Once a blessing to developing economies, including ours, migrants and refugees are now seen by many as a curse. It is true that the short-term negative effect of the current refugee crisis is primarily financial. States and municipalities (provinces and territories in the case of Canada) will have to provide significant funding for education and health care needs of the refugees. There are, however, significant advantages even in this initial period of accommodation. This is especially true for younger refugees. As soon as they find employment, they become an integral part of the tax system and contribute to society in a very concrete fashion. Moreover, some economists argue that refugees and newcomers contribute in the long run by elevating the creativity levels in the host country. As an example, they often cite the impact European immigrants to the United States prior to and during the Second World War had on all strata of American society.
The stereotype about rising crime rates as a consequence of accepting refugees and migrants falls within the Victimization element of the VDD complex. At the same time, the local population is presented as a victim while the government is importing criminogenic elements en masse. Decades-long research into the relation between rising crime rates and the influx of immigrants from diverse backgrounds into British cities, and London in particular, however, had shown hardly an inkling of a relation between the two.
When it comes to insisting on drawing the line between refugees (or the so-called ‘genuine refugees’) and economic migrants, it should be said that such a distinction is exclusively police criteria. It has nothing to do with social, cultural, or human right criteria. Using such distinction as main selection criteria would only create problems. Those running for their lives from bombs and the poverty created by bombs would, if pressed by circumstances, almost certainly resort to misrepresenting their situations. The history of migration is filled with stories of misrepresentation and deception in order to stay alive and settle in a safe and peaceful environment. Furthermore, how is a visa officer to determine which desperate soul meets the criteria of one of the categories? How to determine that a person has arrived from a safe country and is therefore ineligible to be accepted, if we take into account that today Afghanistan is considered a safe country!?
Demonization comes next and it rests entirely on the utter lack of knowledge about diverse cultures and immigrant communities. One of the more troubling narratives of demonization has been that of the fertility of migrants and their high rate of childbirth. We often hear that “they give birth to ten kids or more” which represents “a demographic threat to us”, etc. Research conducted in EU member-states of Austria and Slovenia demonstrated that Muslim immigrants who arrived to those countries some decades ago from Bosnia and Herzegovina had their birth rate drop to the average of 2 children per family. One of the reasons for this shift could be located within the economic sphere: for example, the entering of women into the workforce in their adopted countries. While for many immigrants this has been and remains an issue of economic necessity, for the host country providing employment for women immigrants from more traditional societies constitutes a strategy of accommodation and accepting.
Historical parallels nothwithstanding, the current refugee crisis differs from previous points of historical comparison in two important ways.
First, the point of origin is different. Today’s refugees and forcibly displaced persons have been, to a significant degree, the product of decades-long Western practice of the militarization of foreign policy.
Another element that makes the current crisis different from earlier ones is the huge number of people seeking refuge. According to the 2015 report by the U.N. High Commisison for Refugees over 60 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes. The report concludes that on a global scale “one person in every 122 has been forced to flee their home.”
Europe is faced with millions of undocumented refugees who arrive at the camps and processing station with nothing more than clothes on their back. FRONTEX mechanisms for responding to this crisis does not seem sufficient. The EU administration and the generation of Europeans enjoying the benefits of the EU legal framework has never before encountered such high numbers of refugee claimants and such complex typologies of migrants. Reactions on all levels – national governments and the EU administration alike – are filled with panic because those bureaucracies do not understand the basic parameters of the crisis. All they know is that behind this mass of refugees there is the diversity Europe knows little or nothing about and is unable to deal with. This, of course, is not new and one only needs to remember how Algerians have been ghettoised in France.
That diversity is extremely important and we need to study it thoroughly and understand its inner space. I believe that this is crucial because our knowledge and understanding of this diversity, or the lack of such knowledge and understanding, will determine the treatment of those refugees who manage to remain in various European countries. Of course, empathy towards refugees is also important but we should not forget that empathy fades out rather quickly and it cannot be the basis for a strategy or any plan of action. What is certain, however, is that we will be studying and try to decipher the effects of the current refugee crises for decades to come.
This refugee crisis has highlighted the need for rethinking earlier models and even introducing some fundamental changes in the EU immigration policy. Two things have been clear from the start.
First is the lesson of history: neither wire fences nor walls can stop people from running for their lives and reaching places of safety. Walls, however, achieve things that are strictly for domestic consumption: they isolate the builders and their communities from the outside world and provide false security and misplaced hope that those living within the confines of high concrete barriers might somehow avoid sharing the responsibility for help create conditions that resulted in the forced movement of population.
Second is the central role of local communities in managing the influx of refugees and carrying on the processes of accommodation and integration. The importance of local communities could not be stressed strong enough and governments would be well advised to focus on strengthening the existing mechanisms and help building new ones for accommodation on a local level. Local communities are the most important factor determining the success or failure of the accepting of refugees. They are the front line in the process of accepting and accommodating refugees, and will remain so for the initial two to three years following the arrival of refugees. This is a difficult position to be in, both socially and financially. National governments should shoulder the large portion of this financial burden. The ‘social capital’ of local communities is a very important element in the interaction with refugees. If local communities are strong and well-developed and if they know how to successfully mitigate internal strife and embrace diversity, they will be good ports of call for refugees. Governments need to work on creating new social networks while strengthening those that exist already in local communities in order to prepare them for the influx of new and diverse groups and for gradual integrating of newcomers. Such integration further enhances the existing level of diversity of a local community.
A point of departure in thinking about ways of solving the massive refugee crisis and accommodating newcomers could be the Good Society Project started last year at the London School of Economics (LSE). It is all about building a political base for democracy and pluralism, and about building functional mechanisms for managing large demographic shifts. But it is also about building a political base for the reforming of social democracy in order to address the problems caused by the New Cold War and the militarization of foreign policy.
Dr. Srdja Pavlovic teaches modern European and South Slavic history in the Department of History & Classics at the University of Alberta. He is the editor of the upcoming volume entitled It Could Have Been Spring: Case Studies of Direct Democracies and Active Citizenship (NOMOS, 2017). Dr. Pavlovic is a research associate with the Wirth Institute of Austrian and Central European Studies (U of A) and is currently working on the research project Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Accommodation: Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia. He recently penned two op-ed articles in the Edmonton Journal about the refugee crisis called Stop the war, not the flow of people and Refugees at the gate, elephant in the room. Dr. Pavlovic could be reached at pavlovic@ualberta.ca