Asylum Numbers Down- Economist Credits Policies

Professor Timothy Hatton of the the Australian National University and the University of Essex has claimed in a recent article that over the last decade, the number of asylum applications fell due to tougher and more restrictive policies.

He rightly points out that numbers are falling all over the Western world due to a fewer conflicts around the world than a decade ago. However conflicts are not the only producers of asylum seekers. Indeed, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not even consider conflict as grounds for refugee status. Other causes of forced migration include those fleeing persecution (which are usually on an individual case by case basis not mass influx), development induced displacement, displacement due to natural disasters, and human trafficking. The last three are not grounds for claiming asylum under international law.

Giving credit to more restrictive policies fails to take into consideration some other important points. Not all the policies over the last decade have been restrictive. Indeed, most policies that are aimed at deterrent occur at the border or outside the border such as extra-territorial processing, interdiction, etc. (Andreas notes that in the U.S. while the focus has been on securitizing borders, other government policies subtly favor free movement) Gibney credits this externalizing of restrictive policy as a consequence of increasingly human rights oriented laws internally that bind the state to granting certain protection by the state. This 'embedded liberalism' has been protected by the courts. Once an asylum seeker manages to get into the UK, even if he or she is denied asylum, the European laws largely help the asylum seeker stay in the country through alternative statuses such as subsidiary protection. Moreover, the courts have taken liberal stances in terms of refugee protection by allowing leverage within the refugee status determination system by enlarging the scope of the definition of refugee (such as the notion of a particular social group such as the Kasinga case in the US -1996 and Shah in the UK -1999). Thus, not all policies have been restrictionist.

However, perhaps the main point to argue is that much of the would- be- asylum seekers and refugees over the past decade do not declare asylum, but rather enter countries through mixed migration flows or what is called the asylum/migration nexus. Some examples include:
1) Those who flee persecution, then migrated for economic reasons (such persons often never attempt to claim asylum)
2) Those who are motivated for various reasons including economic reasons but are forced to use irregular means to migrate and often do not claim asylum
3) Those not forced to leave but who are abroad and then their situation at home changes and they become refugee

It is also important to note that most of the world's asylum seekers never make it to western countries. Most end up displaced within their own countries or neighboring countries. (Interestingly, the EU does not allow countries within the EU to provide asylum to people fleeing countries within the EU.)

While some of the drop in numbers might be due to restrictionist policies, it is important to keep in mind the wider picture when it comes to asylum.