# data[].attributes.body
Context to the problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 487,000 people have arrived at Europe's Mediterranean shores in the first nine months of 2015, double all of 2014 and the highest number since record keeping began. The journey is fraught with danger-nearly 3,000 people have perished crossing the Mediterranean this year alone, not counting those who lost their lives en route-and for those who do make it, their future in Europe remains highly uncertain.

With the unprecedented volumes of new arrivals, even the best-prepared European countries have reached a breaking point in their ability to meet European Union (EU) standards for receiving and processing applicants. Those with less experience managing immigration or hosting asylum seekers have given in at times to rash or counterproductive impulses. The question of who is responsible for those arriving has reignited deep internal divisions between Member States. Months of tense negotiations over efforts to relocate tens of thousands of asylum seekers from Greece and Italy resulted in a September 22 majority vote among EU interior ministers approving the relocation of 120,000 refugees across the continent, overriding objections to the redistribution scheme from several Eastern Member States. Frontline states such as Greece and Italy bear a disproportionate responsibility for receiving new arrivals, although most newcomers quickly move on to wealthier European Union (EU) countries including Sweden and Germany-which in 2015 received almost half of all EU asylum applications. In the process, a new front line has emerged in transit countries such as Hungary and Croatia that suddenly face enormous pressures at their borders, and in the case of Hungary the reaction has been to erect barbed-wire fencing and try at times to contain (or push back) the asylum seekers.

The flows themselves are extremely complex and driven by a complicated mix of factors. Although the majority of those arriving have protection needs (approximately three-quarters will qualify for refugee status or other protection), many are departing for Europe not from their countries of origin-where they face violence and persecution-but from places of first asylum, such as Turkey and Jordan, that have become overwhelmed by protection responsibilities. Globally, 86 percent of refugees are hosted in the developing world, which is rife with its own economic and political challenges. Ninety percent of the 4 million Syrians displaced outside their country's borders, for instance, are located in just three countries-Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. As the war continues into its fifth year and resources and opportunities in these countries dry up, more of the displaced have begun looking to Europe for shelter.

As the sense of chaos at Europe's borders escalates-with 4,000 arrivals per day on the Greek islands and tent camps erected almost overnight in German cities upending any remaining sense of order-European destination countries find themselves with no easy solutions. What is clear is that an effective response will need to be grounded in an understanding of the root causes of the flows, why they have spiked now, and what is likely to be the next pressure point. The costs of failure could be high. In the face of seemingly endless spontaneous arrivals, systems are caving under pressure, and trust and solidarity are eroding-between Member States, between publics and their governments, and within the global-protection system as a whole.
Shifting Routes: The Scale and Nature of the Challenge
The flow of migrants and refugees crossing the Mediterranean has increased dramatically, with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recording more than 487,000 arrivals by sea so far this year, up from 23,000 three years ago. In August alone, there were more than 130,000 maritime arrivals-a near quadrupling of the number seen in August 2014.

Migrants and refugees arrive via three primary routes, the relative significance of which has shifted throughout 2015:

Central Mediterranean Route (Italy and Malta): More than 120,000 migrants and refugees arrived in Europe via the Central Mediterranean between January and September. Most have traveled on smugglers' boats departing from Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt. This extremely dangerous route dominated flows during 2014 and was the location of large-scale tragedies in October 2013 and April 2015, prompting calls for an EU-level response. The Central Mediterranean has diminished in use in 2015, partly due to increased instability in Libya, but remains the primary entry point for sub-Saharan nationals with few alternative routes. Eritreans and Nigerians have been the largest groups traveling the Central Mediterranean in 2015.

Eastern Mediterranean Route (Greece/Aegean Sea): The Eastern Mediterranean has become the primary maritime route in 2015. More than 350,000 individuals have crossed from Turkey to Greece (the vast majority to Greek islands like Lesbos and Kos near the Turkish coast) in the first nine months of 2015. The shift in flows to the Eastern Mediterranean has been primarily driven by a change in migration patterns among Syrians, who have found it easier and safer to travel to Europe via Turkey to Greece. The short journey from Turkey to the Greek islands, just a few miles away, is safer than the much longer Central Mediterranean route. There are some reports of refugees undertaking the journey themselves, without relying on smugglers. Afghan and Pakistani nationals also arrive via the Eastern Mediterranean.

Western Balkans (Hungary): More than 155,000 people crossed from Serbia into Hungary between January and August. Two primary groups travel this route: Western Balkan nationals-especially from Kosovo and Albania-and migrants and refugees traveling onward from Greece to reach the rest of the European Union. As arrivals to Greece have increased, so too has traffic through the Balkans and across the Hungarian border.

The largest numbers come from Syria-accounting for more than 50 percent of arrivals in 2015-followed by Eritrea, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Nigeria, Iraq, and several West African states including Senegal, Gambia, and Mali. Of those submitting asylum claims, Syrians and Eritreans are the most likely to be granted protection (more than 90 percent of both groups receive refugee status or another form of protection). Afghans, Iraqis, and Somalis are also likely to be granted refugee protection, while fewer than 5 percent of claims from Western Balkan nationals are accepted.
Economic Migrant or Refugee?
All three routes receive mixed flows composed of three primary groups: 1) individuals whose protection claims are likely to be recognized by European authorities, such as Syrians and Eritreans; 2) individuals fleeing instability or violence in their home countries who may not qualify for refugee status but are still at risk for other reasons including Somalis and some Syrians; and 3) migrants who feel compelled to leave their countries for largely economic reasons-Western Balkans and sub-Saharan nationals, for example.

Despite the distinct legal categories into which new arrivals are slotted, individuals have complex and overlapping motivations for leaving their origin countries that defy simple categorization. Even for those fleeing conflict or oppressive regimes, it is often difficult to pinpoint one precipitating push factor, especially one that aligns with the legal grounds for claiming asylum. The 1951 Geneva Convention offers a single definition of a refugee: someone fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Ultimately, opportunity differentials continue to drive most movements, even for refugees. For many, reaching Europe means the chance to build or regain a normal life that has been disrupted by political or economic turmoil, conflict, or persecution. Thus while international law draws a bright line between refugees and other migrants (requiring very different treatment for the former), this distinction is much more nuanced in practice.

Even the motivations of those seen as primarily "economic migrants" may not be completely clear. Western Balkan nationals, for example, face extremely high unemployment and poverty rates, and have a clear economic incentive to seek entry to Europe. Roma or other minority ethnic groups that face severe and systemic discrimination in their home countries and could, in some cases, be considered grounds for refugee status represent a substantial share of those making the journey.

Motivations to move may also shift as conflicts wear on. While more than 4 million Syrians have found safety in neighboring countries, these countries have yet to provide the full legal status or rights entitled to refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention-including the all-important right to work. With few opportunities to resume a normal life or economic self-sufficiency in first-asylum countries, and little hope that conditions will improve in the future, many Syrians are choosing to search for their own solutions in Europe.

The diversity of these flows-both in terms of the nationalities of those arriving and the motivations of individuals themselves-creates an added challenge for asylum authorities trying to determine who is a "genuine" refugee, who may qualify for another form of protection, and who does not have legal grounds to stay in the European Union. Each arrival must receive an individual assessment of his or her claim for protection, often a lengthy and resource-intensive process, and backlogs of claims awaiting adjudication have begun to grow in many Member States as authorities lack the means to keep up with the rising number of cases. But even those whose claims are denied stand a chance of remaining in the European Union, as return rates for failed asylum seekers remain low.
Why Now?
The arrival of Syrian refugees in Europe is not a new phenomenon. The Syrian civil war erupted in March 2011, leading to a steady escalation in the number of Syrians seeking protection in Europe since. These arrivals had already revealed fissures in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which provides common standards governing processing and reception in each of the 28 EU Member States' national asylum systems. But the near-exponential surge in the spring and summer of 2015 has nearly brought the struggling CEAS to its knees, overwhelming the capacity of policymakers and publics to respond. Many onlookers were left asking: why now? This escalation can be attributed to a confluence of intersecting push-and-pull factors, some of which have been simmering for years (and have simply been exacerbated by the passage of time and/or recent triggering events), others of which are new.

The combination of push factors includes: (1) the ongoing violence and instability in origin countries that have both precipitated mass movements and made return impossible (at least in the short to medium term); (2) the deterioration of conditions in countries of first asylum which has led some, including Jordan and Lebanon, to tighten their borders, limiting access to nearby safe havens for the displaced; (3) the continued lack of opportunities to work or enroll in school for most refugees, which is a major driver of onward movements; and (4) geopolitical changes that have closed off alternative destinations, such as Libya.

While many of these conditions are not new, they have intensified over time. The longer people remain displaced, with little prospect of return, the greater the burden on host countries that are themselves facing enormous political and economic struggles. Turkey, for example, has spent more than US$6 billion hosting refugees. In Lebanon, where tensions have been particularly acute, Syrians now comprise close to one-quarter of the population and by some counts Syrian children exceed the entire capacity of Lebanon's public schools. More than half of Syrians in Lebanon and one-sixth of refugees in Jordan are living in extreme poverty. Services in host communities are inundated, and opportunities to access essentials like education or health care have become limited for refugee and host communities alike. And as times get tougher, public opinion can sour. Initial generosity toward short-term "guests" does not always translate to support for permanent neighbors, who may compete with natives for jobs and limited spots in schools.

Geopolitical and economic changes over the last several years have added to migration pressures in the region. The armed conflicts and political crises currently facing Libya and Egypt have led not only to the suspension of bilateral and EU migration-enforcement agreements with those countries, but disrupted regional labor markets and migration flows within northern Africa. Libya in particular was a regional hub for migrant labor before the Arab Spring. Estimates put the migrant worker population in the country in 2011 at close to 2.5 million, including many sub-Saharan nationals. Many migrants who returned to work in the country since the overthrow of the Gadhafi regime have become stranded in an increasingly unstable Libya and chosen to cross to Europe in an effort to escape the growing conflict.

On the other end of the spectrum, policy announcements by European governments, as well as the creative use of social media, may have created new enabling (or pull) factors. Some individuals who had previously resisted leaving may feel emboldened by news of their compatriots having successfully arrived in Europe alongside reports of countries like Germany or Sweden granting status to most Syrians who make it to their territory. Social media enables these "success" stories to spread instantaneously, along with tips on how to navigate the journey and access critical services upon arrival. New initiatives like the "Airbnb for refugees" in Germany and Austria-albeit small-scale-may make it easier for refugees who have fewer support systems or networks to navigate unfamiliar environments. In addition, the chaos at European borders means that even if individuals do not qualify for protection, there may be a long lag time before their claims are adjudicated, during which time many travel onward illegally through Europe. Finally, classic patterns of chain migration may also be responsible for some of the new flows, as settled migrants reunify with family and friends. And this may just be the tip of the iceberg. The refugees and migrants currently arriving on Europe's shores are almost 70 percent male, and media and nongovernmental organization (NGO) reports suggest that those arriving are "first movers" with family still abroad who intend to join them through legal channels once their claims are granted.
Why This Crisis Is So Difficult to Tackle
The sheer scale of displacement worldwide has tested the limits of the international protection regime built around the 1951 Refugee Convention and revealed existing fault lines and failures in current humanitarian policies. As of 2014, UNHCR estimates that 59.5 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes, of whom 19.5 million are refugees outside their countries of origin. Three primary factors have limited the system's capacity to respond.

First, existing approaches to protection have proven singularly unable to find solutions for long-term displaced populations. Almost half of refugees under UNHCR's care in 2014 had been displaced for five years or more. For most, return to their origin country or resettlement in a third country remains a distant possibility; in 2014, approximately 105,000 refugees were resettled through UNHCR, representing less than 1 percent of all refugees displaced globally. Humanitarian responses in refugee situations have been criticized for focusing too heavily on the "care and maintenance" of refugee populations, leaving refugees essentially "warehoused" for years on end, their lives in limbo, with little focus on long-term, sustainable solutions.

Second, the international community has failed to offer anything like meaningful burden-sharing to host countries in conflict regions, which care for the vast majority of the world's refugees. Neither assistance funding nor resettlement places-insufficient before the latest surge in displacement-have increased apace with the level of need. And the resources that are available are finite, and dwindle as time wears on. In Lebanon, for example, the World Food Program (WFP) announced in July it would have to reduce food vouchers given to Syrian refugees by half. The 2015 UN joint appeal for the region had received just 40 percent of requested funding as of September. Although all categories of the appeal are underfunded, support for livelihoods development and host-community resilience has been particularly low, adding to the prospect of long-term vulnerability in the affected countries. European leaders acknowledged the significance of the funding gap facing the Syria refugee response at an extraordinary EU summit on September 23, promising an additional 1 billion euros to UNHCR and WFP to ease the deficit (half will come from EU funds and half from Member States). Prior to the latest announcement, European countries had provided more than one-third of the funding for the United Nations' response, with the United States providing a further one-third of the financing. But outside Europe and the United States, financial support for the Syria region has been less than forthcoming. Other than Japan, no countries in Asia or Latin America have contributed, and while Kuwait has been the third largest financial contributor to the international response, other Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia have come under criticism for not doing more.

Furthermore, UNHCR-reported resettlement departures have barely increased over 2009 levels. Countries not immediately affected by the crisis have been slow to offer resettlement places. Recent offers by traditional resettlement countries like Australia, Canada, and the United States to provide an additional 10,000-12,000 places each for Syrians are just a drop in the bucket in comparison with the 4 million refugees who have been displaced. And so far offers from countries without established resettlement programs have been even less forthcoming.

Finally, the principles of protection enshrined in the Refugee Convention (in particular the requirement that refugees be located outside their country of origin) have resulted in territorially based national asylum systems-refugees must gain access to a state's territory in order to exercise their rights to claim asylum. At the same time, wealthy nations have undertaken a large-scale effort to secure and "push out" their borders. Visa restrictions and airline sanctions, for example, have made it difficult-if not impossible-for most of those seeking protection to reach their destinations through common means of entry. As a result, refugees are forced to rely on increasingly risky and dangerous routes, often requiring the use of smugglers, to gain entry to asylum systems in Europe and elsewhere.
A Global Challenge
Although the absolute scale of protection needs facing Europe is still smaller than that in many countries of first asylum-though this is rapidly shifting-the unplanned, fast-changing, and unevenly distributed nature of the flows has caused serious difficulties for countries with highly organized immigration and integration systems, labor markets, and social services. Emerging struggles in many European countries to continue to provide for new arrivals at a high standard-the deteriorating conditions on the Greek islands are one highly visible example-raise the possibility that there may be a limit to what Europe can handle. Several international aid organizations, normally operating in countries like Iraq or Pakistan, have now launched assistance programming in Europe (for example, the International Rescue Committee, World Vision, Save the Children, and Doctors without Borders are all now operational in Europe).

Given that few truly innovative or large-scale solutions to the growing protection challenge have so far presented themselves, what is seen at Europe's borders may not be a "crisis" but rather the new normal.

Migration flows are inherently difficult to predict, but none of the push factors driving refugees and migrants to Europe's shores appear likely to be resolved soon. Little progress has so far been made in resolving the political situation in Syria, suggesting ISIS and other extremist groups will have plenty of room to continue exploiting the power vacuum in large parts of the country. Related violence in neighboring Iraq is likely to add to the refugee flows.

Meanwhile, patience and capacity in neighboring countries are clearly wearing thin. Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, for example, while generously opening their doors to millions of Syrians, have strongly resisted granting refugees formal legal status or rights that would encourage their long-term integration, instead referring to them as "guests." As a result, refugees' rights and opportunities in these countries remain limited. Both Lebanon and Jordan have also restricted access to their territory for Syrians, driving new flows to Turkey where authorities have turned a blind eye to smugglers moving people on to Europe. In the absence of a large-scale increase in support for these countries (both in terms of aid and resettlement), it should come as a shock to no one that refugees continue to seek more stable conditions and longer-term solutions in Europe's asylum systems.

Elsewhere, conflict and oppression seem unlikely to abate. Political oppression in Eritrea, including forced conscription, will continue to drive flows. At the same time, growing instability in Egypt and escalating conflicts in Libya and Yemen may prove to be new sources for refugee flows to Europe; violence in Yemen has already driven many to seek safety across the Gulf of Aden in Somalia-reversing long-time regional flows. Yet Europe has few early-warning systems in place equipped to predict mass movements before they happen. Indeed, migration is usually used as an indicator of brewing political conflicts or large-scale natural disasters, rather than a policy target in and of itself. In the short term, the usual reduction in Mediterranean arrivals over the winter months may not materialize as migrants and refugees use the shorter and safer crossing from Turkey to Greece.

Against this new landscape, countries in Europe and elsewhere will have to think hard about how to approach their protection responsibilities. Giving in to the impulses to erect bigger fences without concomitantly dealing with the root causes of these movements will only serve to deepen the pockets of smugglers, not reduce the flows themselves. Most thinking has pointed to a need to approach refugee- and migrant-producing situations in a much more comprehensive way that moves beyond humanitarian and asylum tools alone. In a more connected and mobile world, waiting to deal with a problem until it reaches a country's borders is not sustainable. In the same vein, providing protection can no longer be seen as a purely national responsibility; responses that mobilize both financial and political resources at the regional-and global-levels will need to become the new normal.
Sources
Economist, The. 2015. How many migrants to Europe are refugees?" The Economist, September 7, 2015. Available Online.

Eurostat. 2015. Asylum in the EU: Over 210,000 first time asylum seekers in the EU in the second quarter of 2015. News release, September 18, 2015. Available Online.

---. 2015. Migratory Routes Map. Accessed September 23, 2015. Available Online.

Guild, Elspeth and Karin Zwaan. 2014. Does Europe Still Create Refugees? Examining the Situation of the Roma. Queen's Law Journal 40 (1).

Hurriyet Daily News. 2015. Turkey urges world's help on Syrian refugees as spending reaches $6 billion. Hurriyet Daily News, February 27, 2015. Available Online.

---. 2015. Refugees endure worsening conditions as Syria's conflict enters 5 th year. Press release, March 12, 2015. Available Online.

---. 2015. Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response - Mediterranean. Accessed September 24, 2015. Available Online.

---. 2015. Syria Regional Response Portal. Accessed September 22, 2015. Available Online.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), Financial Tracking Service. 2015. Total Funding to the Syrian Crisis 2015. Accessed September 22, 2015. Available Online.

Wall, Indonesia. 2015. Response or opportunism? IRIN News, September 15, 2015. Available Online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan, Susan Fratzke Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan and Susan Fratzke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Europe's Migration Crisis in Context: Why Now and What Next?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Europe struggles to reach a consensus on how to respond to the refugee crisis, the seemingly unending flow of migrants and refugees arriving on its shores is bringing national asylum systems to their breaking point. This article analyzes the context of the crisis, discussing the root causes of the flows, why they are spiking now, and growing protection challenges.

# data[].attributes.body
Considering World-Wide response to rhetoric

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every week, The WorldPost asks an expert to shed light on a topic driving headlines around the world. Today, we speak with Demetrios Papademetriou about Europe's migrant crisis.
Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war and searching for a better life have crossed into Europe this year, often by perilous means. This ever-increasing influx of migrants from nations such as Syria, Eritrea and Iraq has left European countries struggling to cope with a growing humanitarian disaster.

Scenes of thousands of migrants held in sports stadiums or makeshift encampments, sometimes lacking food or water, show how dire and inadequate current conditions are for people arriving in Europe.

The crisis has also left states both domestically and internationally divided over how to respond to this rise in migration. Asylum applications are extremely unevenly distributed among EU nations, and some political parties' framing of migrants as a security concern and economic issue has renewed nationalist tensions.

As the number of migrants entering Europe soars, aid agencies and prominent EU leaders have called for a unified policy to address migration. But such attempts have so far resulted in dead ends, and with more people arriving on Mediterranean shores each day, the pressure is on to find a solution.

To better understand what action Europe needs to take to sufficiently address the crisis, The WorldPost talked with migration expert Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute Europe.

What should a European migration policy look like?
This is a complex crisis. There are humanitarian elements, a border protection crisis, an integration crisis and a financial crisis. If you do nothing to address each of them, each wave of migration will be bigger than the last. Any nation has an obligation to rescue people. That is a given, it is not a policy.

Europe will have to invest in creating real opportunities for refugees, in particular from Syria, so that they can stay in neighboring countries. We have to create opportunities for refugees to make a livelihood, get an education, and access health services. We also have to create opportunities for the local populations in these countries who have been affected on a day-to-day basis by the massive number of refugees. Otherwise, more Syrians are going to come to Europe out of sheer desperation.

Europe should also try to work with countries that are a launching pad. Afghans, for example, have to pass through a lot of countries to get to Europe. We could target three or four key countries on the pathway and do as much as it takes to get their cooperation -- to stop traffickers, to create opportunities for people to stay, and create a safe pathway.

It's very difficult to solve the Syrian problem. So, let's make sure there's not another Syria. We need to invest political resources and financial incentives to make sure that the next country that might have a problem doesn't become so bad that people have to flee for their lives. By the time the exodus takes place, you've already lost the game. This has already happened in Yemen. I'm very concerned about Egypt. A foreign policy that tries to just put out fires is not a foreign policy, it's a reaction.

It's very difficult to solve the Syrian problem. So, let's make sure there's not another Syria.

What about people who have already made it to Europe?
There are three "baskets" of people: those judged to be refugees, who have a real fear of persecution; those who receive " subsidiary protection," who come from countries with authoritarian regimes but are not themselves specifically targeted; and illegal immigrants. We have to protect refugees, make sure subsidiary protection is not open-ended, and return illegal immigrants and do it quickly. Europe needs to send a message to the next wave of immigrants, as well as to assure the public that someone is "minding the store." In order to protect refugees, you need to make sure that those who are not refugees are sent back.

It's the people who receive "subsidiary protection" who are the most difficult category. They're not refugees, but they come from countries that are not particularly safe. For example, Eritreans are fleeing a pretty nasty regime and forced conscription. Does that mean every Eritrean who makes it to Europe should get full protection?

What does the future hold for migrants integrating into Europe?
The effects of the latest wave of migration are going to be felt for the next five to 10 years. Despite what people in the U.S. think, Europe has made enormous progress integrating migrants, especially in Germany. This has happened through investing in integration -- language and civics classes, for example, and integrating people into the labor force. It's possible to do this when you have 30,000 people arriving, but what do you do about 1 million people, as looks possible in Germany? Meanwhile, Greece is completely broke. Macedonia has closed the border and an awful lot of people may end up being stuck in Greece. How will the people of Greece react? There have been a lot of very nasty reactions to immigrants in Greece in the last few years.

Unless we have a strategic response to this crisis, a lot of countries are going to be overwhelmed.
What needs to happen for Europe to adopt a more strategic migration policy?
If a few of the more powerful and wealthy countries in the European Union get together and decide to push Brussels, it could happen. Each one has a comet tail of other countries that would support them.
Is there political will to do that?
The simple fact is that if [European leaders] don't take control, they will lose their jobs. Governments will fall if the reaction gets even more hostile. People always say it's just extremists and racists and try to sideline the issue. But if this hostility becomes mainstream, some of the politicians' rhetoric and policies will have to move further to the right, and then it's too late.

Unless we have a strategic response to this crisis, a lot of countries are going to be overwhelmed.

What do you expect Europe to do next?
They seem to be moving in the direction of a greater police response. The U.K. and France forged an agreement over [the migrant crisis in] Calais on Thursday that focused on police enforcement. It's likely that the next set of initiatives will fall more on security rather than a complex set of integrated activities.

However, Germany's development minister recently called for 10 billion euros to support Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan -- countries that are hosting nearly 4 million Syrian refugees. This suggests that Europe could be beginning to think more strategically.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What A Solution To Europe's Migration Crisis Could Look Like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every week, The WorldPost asks an expert to shed light on a topic driving headlines around the world. Today, we speak with Demetrios Papademetriou about Europe's migrant crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war and searching for a better life have crossed into Europe this year, often by perilous means.

# data[].attributes.body
Considering World-Wide Policy options

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some 60 million people are in flight worldwide, many of forcibly displaced from their homes. These people represent the greatest mass migration since the Second World War. The majority of those fleeing are trapped inside conflict zones, stuck in under-served camps or corralled into transit or detention centres. The act of migration itself is increasingly restricted and results in greater suffering, insecurity and vulnerability for those in flight. With diminishing legal routes for asylum seekers and our collective welcome mat rolled up and tucked out of sight, a growing number of undocumented migrants, refugees and asylum seekers remain underground and unprotected, because of hardening national legislation, regional deterrence policies and the erection of new physical barriers.

These barriers are constructed to prevent people from safely reaching territory where they can seek asylum and claim international protection. Rather than stemming the flow of migrants, these punitive practices push them underground into illegality and force them to attempt routes that are ever more dangerous. As a result, they are even more vulnerable and their physical and mental health is negatively affected.

Today, the policies of many destination countries aim to deter irregular migration by using out-of-sight - and at times nefarious - detention and interdiction practices that can prevent people from legally escaping situations of violence and hardship in their home countries, hindering their human right to flight and access to health care.

Since its founding in 1971, the independent humanitarian medical organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has provided care to refugees and those caught in conflict around the world. In countries such as Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan, MSF assists people who have been obliged by conflict, disaster or persecution to leave their homes. Field workers witness the dangerous situations people are forced into by displacement and restrictive policies, such as perilous journeys across the Mediterranean Sea. In 2015 the organization launched its first-ever sea rescue operations to save the lives of people drowning while attempting to reach Europe by sea. It responded to the crisis in Europe caused by the collective failure of European countries, and called on countries to address refugees' humanitarian needs and provide search-and-rescue, safe and legal passage, and adequate reception. By May 31, 2016, 2,856 migrants had already paid with their lives for the chance of finding safety and a better life.

MSF delivers emergency medical care based on patients' needs, without regard for their status, ethnicity, religion, gender or identity. Many of our patients have fled or lost their homes and are in an extremely vulnerable state; some suffer from health and psychological conditions as a direct result of the dangers caused by their migration journeys and by the policies that exacerbate those hardships- including some pursued by Canada and other countries. The rationale used for the implementation of these policies falls under the umbrella of "securitization," prioritizing border control over the plight of people seeking protection.

The fundamental humanitarian needs of people travelling in search of safety, freedom or better lives should not be denied to them by short-sighted and poorly aligned migration policies that fail to address the immensity of a global crisis in which tens of millions have been driven from their homes. The negative health and psychological consequences of such policies and approaches have already exacerbated the suffering experienced by millions of people in flight - something that should be unacceptable. Governments must respect their obligations under international humanitarian, refugee and asylum law, and as global citizens, to protect the world's most vulnerable from harm. They must address the incoherent and ineffective policies causing so much suffering and create a more equitable and humane response within the multilateral system.
Dangerous journeys, exclusion from health care
For many, forcible displacement is linked to chronic factors such as extreme economic deprivation, seasonal food insecurity and persistent religious or ethnic persecution. Increasingly, however, the most significant factor causing displacement is acute violence, whether in war zones such as Syria, or in regions like Central America, where criminal gangs can act with terrifying impunity. For example, 42 percent of migrants from El Salvador treated by MSF teams along the migration corridor through Mexico said the primary reason for their journey was to escape criminal violence at home.

And yet migration journeys themselves are risky and violent. In Mexico, women and men routinely report intimidation as well as physical and sexual violence by smugglers, criminal groups and security forces along migration routes and in detention centres. Migrants who have been brutalized or injured are further harmed by their inability to access health care, because of their lack of legal status and fear of authorities. Even when assistance is offered through religious charities or clinics run by NGOs, smugglers often block access to these services. In 2014, 4 out of 10 patients seeking care in the MSF clinic in Ixtepec, Mexico, reported significant mental health issues. Eighty percent had witnessed violence, and 10 percent had suffered violence first hand.

People report similar experiences in other parts of the world. Agnes, an Eritrean woman rescued by MSF's search-and-rescue operations from a sinking migrant boat in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015, described some of the abuse she and her fellow travellers were subject to on the underground migration networks that were the only choice for them: "We travelled in containers, like animals or objects," she said. "It was very dark and hot in the containers. Many people fainted because of the heat and some died...It was very difficult for my daughter - she fell sick many times. There was a lot of violence. I was beaten with bare hands, with sticks, with guns. If you move, they beat you. If you talk, they beat you. We spent two months like that, being beaten every day."

"I knew that the journey would be very dangerous and difficult," she said, "especially for my daughter. But what was the alternative? We could not survive in Eritrea or Sudan. Our government does not allow people to leave. With our documents in Eritrea, there was no other way for us to get to Europe."

Agnes' story highlights not only the brutal violence that many migrants are subjected to while trying to reach their intended destinations, but also the dilemma they face: should they risk the horrors of the criminal-run migration routes or remain trapped in untenable situations at home? This choice is the direct result of policies that place deliberate obstacles in the paths of those who wish to seek refuge or asylum in new countries. By making it nearly impossible for migrants to travel legally to their destinations, governments force them into underground networks run by violent criminal gangs, in effect giving them - already vulnerable to abuse and hardship in their home countries - no choice but to risk potentially worse violence at the hands of smugglers and other predators in order to escape.

This de facto criminalization of migration is the result of specific practices and policies pursued by many destination countries, such as screenings in European airports and the United States' hard-fisted attempts to block migrants from physically accessing its southern border with Mexico. By making it more difficult for people to cross borders by legal means, these measures increase the humanitarian consequences of the global displacement crisis, by giving rise to robust and mercenary criminal networks that seeks to profit from violent control of underground migration routes.
Interdiction and detention
An increasing number of destination country governments are engaging in extraterritorial interdiction measures in an attempt to prevent migrants and asylum seekers from ever leaving their homes or transit countries. These intergovernmental cooperation agreements were security and bureaucratic undertakings and exchanges and now include financial payments, which push screening offshore, install virtual borders and prevent migrants from exercising their rights to seek protection and declare asylum.

These efforts produce the situations that make legal travel virtually impossible, forcing migrants into the hands of underground criminal networks. Furthermore, Australia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, the United States and Canada employ special migration integrity officers to advise other governments. They effectively shift the responsibility for screening onto airlines at foreign airports by advising them on how to detect fraudulent travel documents to keep away "unwanted" migrants. Such advanced screening often prevents those fleeing persecution and violence from being able to seek and exercise their right to asylum.

Interdiction measures often require partnership with governments in origin and transit countries, many of them well known to have weak human rights records. These measures increase migrants' vulnerability to arrest, detention, persecution and harm, by returning them to their country of origin, which they fled to seek safety, or by not letting them leave transit countries and bringing them to the attention of authorities.

The March 2016 EU-Turkey deal that enforces migration cooperation between EU member states and Turkey is causing unacceptable human consequences and violates the moral and legal responsibility to assist women, men and children who are asking for protection. MSF condemns the deal as a false solution and an affront to humanitarian obligations.

While the protection of borders and access to territory falls within states' rights and responsibilities, the interdiction approach removes refugees' rights to seek asylum and their ability to seek international protection. The "externalization of borders " is essentially an act of outsourcing: wealthy countries that do not want new migrants, but are required by international obligations and treaties to provide care and asylum for refugees, seek to bypass these responsibilities by paying other governments to do it for them.
Canada's record as a destination country
As a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Canada has a legal obligation to assist refugees. It has made an effort to live up to these obligations, and in some respects has demonstrated an open approach in its treatment of migrants and refugees. For example, it recently showed leadership by welcoming Syrian refugees, and it reinstated supplemental health care for all refugees and asylum seekers.

But Canada also has an uneven record when it comes to asylum seekers and migrants trying to reach Canada. In 2012, the government introduced a "safe" designated country of origin ( DCO) category for refugees, meaning asylum seekers from those places can be returned without concerns that they are at risk from persecution. This controversial list includes Mexico, which has been plagued by militarized drug wars and violence. The DCO list makes it difficult for refugee claimants who reach Canada to pursue their claims, as the timelines for their Refugee Protection Division hearings are shorter.

Canada continues to use detention as part of its migration-policy toolbox. In 2009 and 2010 the arrival of two boats of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka prompted the government to introduce legal changes - implemented in 2012 - to impose harsher anti-smuggling measures and create the category of "irregular arrivals," who would be subjected to mandatory detention. Such detainees are usually held at immigration holding centres (IHC) operated by the Canada Border Services Agency or at provincial prisons. Criminal facilities are used for high-risk detainees when the IHCs are overcrowded and when there is no dedicated immigration facility for high-risk detainees in the region. In Canada, 30 percent of immigration detainees are held in provincial prisons, despite the fact they are a low-risk, noncriminal population.

Refugee experts are concerned about the well-being of people who may never have experienced a "prison-like environment before." And experts who visit IHCs report that the harm caused by detention is not limited to the incarcerated population: there is a ripple effect, because it fosters negative impressions in the wider public of detainees as criminals and deviants. This can feed into a moral panic surrounding boat arrivals. Hardening public attitudes towards migrants can become a justification for mandatory detentions.

According to MSF´s experience supporting migrants, interdiction and detention policies have severe humanitarian consequences. People suffer abuse and ill-treatment, and prolonged and indefinite detention is harmful to physical and mental health. In some migrant reception centres, MSF has stopped work because of the inadequate, harmful or undignified care and reception that migrants receive. For example, it ceased work at the Moira "hotspot" for migrants in Lesbos, Greece, in March 2016, because of "unfair and inhumane" treatment.

While MSF does not work with migrants in Canada, it is concerned that the country is one of the few in the West that has no time limit on detentions. The UN Human Rights Committee is alarmed by accounts of indefinite detention of migrants and mandatory detention of people who enter Canada through "irregular" channels. They also have concerns about similar practices in Australia and the United States.
A shared responsibility
The global displacement crisis and responses to it is the defining issue of our time. We as an international community are failing our fellow human beings, and we are creating social, health, security and economic problems instead of solving them. History will judge us. The surge of displacement is sure to continue, and governments and citizens will have to figure out how to address this political challenge. It is an enormous task, and tackling it will take resources, collaboration and sustained commitment.

MSF urges all countries to uphold their moral and legal obligations to treat all people in a fair, humane and dignified manner. The organization has a humanitarian role to play in assisting people who are in need, but the solution to the migration crisis must be political.

There is an urgent need for a paradigm shift. We must approach this crisis as a shared global responsibility.

Photo: Médecins Sans Frontières / Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Canada

Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the Policy Options discussion, and send in your own submission. Here is a on how to do it. | Souhaitez-vous réagir à cet article ? Joignez-vous aux débats d'Options politiques et soumettez-nous votre texte en suivant ces directives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The solution to the migration crisis must be political

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some 60 million people are in flight worldwide, many of forcibly displaced from their homes. These people represent the greatest mass migration since the Second World War. The majority of those fleeing are trapped inside conflict zones, stuck in under-served camps or corralled into transit or detention centres.

# data[].attributes.body
Ways to help the ongoing migrant crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2016 became the deadliest year on record with 5,096 deaths at sea.

65.6 million people were displaced due to war, persecution and violence.

The journey into Europe remains dangerous and deadly. Organizations are providing life saving assistance, emergency aid and family reunification services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
international relations and national security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ways to help ongoing migrant crisis - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jacqueline Gulledge, Bethany Hines & Lauren Lee 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2016 became the deadliest year on record with 5,096 deaths at sea. 65.6 million people were displaced due to war, persecution and violence. The journey into Europe remains dangerous and deadly. Organizations are providing life saving assistance, emergency aid and family reunification services.

# data[].attributes.body
Here's how you can help migrants in Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are a few different ways you can help the migrant crisis in Europe, by donating money, supplies or time.

# data[].attributes.body
8 WAYS TO SOLVE THE WORLD REFUGEE CRISIS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 ways to solve the world refugee crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world’s system for protecting refugees is broken. It is obvious - from of Australia to South Sudan’s vast camps, from Istanbul’s cold streets to the European Union’s heavily fortified walls. Worldwide, 19.5 million people have been forced to seek sanctuary abroad. Governments have a duty to help…