Advertisement

Asylum Policy in the West: Past Trends, Future Possibilities

  • Matthew J. Gibney
  • Randall Hansen
Part of the Studies in Development Economics and Policy book series (SDEP)

Abstract

For much of the post-war period, ‘asylum’ and ‘immigration’ were distinct concepts and processes. Throughout the West, asylum was bound up with the Cold War: ‘protection’ meant protection from Communism, and the terms ‘refugee’ and ‘defector’ were synonymous. When the public thought about refugees, to the extent it thought about them at all, it associated them with Hungarian freedom fighters or Soviet ballet dancers, both of whom were popular figures. As for immigration, it meant different things in different countries: in the settler societies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it was a permanent movement of people who sought to try their luck in the New World. In the traditional emigration countries of Europe, it referred to the putatively temporary movement of guest workers who were expected to feed the European economic machine for a few years before returning home. The important point is that, in both cases, the two movements were everywhere separate.

Keywords

Asylum Seeker Western State Refugee Status State Territory Illegal Migrant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BBC (2001). ‘Councils “Overspend on Asylum Seekers”’, 5 April, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/uk_politics/1261116.stm (accessed 13 August 2002).Google Scholar
  2. Castles, S. and G. Kosack (1973). Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chimni, B. S. (1998). ‘The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View From the South’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4): 350–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ECRE (1998). Country Reports websites: http://www.unhcr.ch/statist/99profiles/ can.pdf, http://www.unhcr.ch/statist/rsd220601.pdf, ‘2000 Global Refugee Trends. Analysis of the 2000 Provisional UNHCR Population Statistics, May 2000’: http://www.unhcr.ch/statist/2000provisional/trends.pdf (accessed 19 September 2001).Google Scholar
  5. ECRE (2001). The Promise of Protection: Progress Towards a European Asylum Policy Since the Tampere Summit 1999, November.Google Scholar
  6. Favell, A. and R. Hansen (2002). ‘Markets Against Politics: Migration, EU Enlargement and the Idea of Europe’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4): 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibney, M. J. (2000a). ‘Between Control and Humanitarianism: Temporary Protection in Contemporary Europe’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 14(2) 2: 689–709.Google Scholar
  8. Gibney, M. J. (2000b). ‘Outside the Protection of the Law: Irregular Migration in Europe’, Refugee Studies Centre Working Paper, No. 6, University of Oxford, December.Google Scholar
  9. Gibney, M. J. (2003). ‘The State of Asylum: Democratization, Judicialization and the Evolution of Refugee Policy’, in S. Kneebone, (ed.), The Refugees Convention 50 Years On: Globalisation and International Law, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  10. Gibney, M. J. and R. Hansen (2003). ‘Deportation and the Liberal State’, UNHCR New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper, No. 77, Geneva, February.Google Scholar
  11. Guardian (2002). ‘Blunkett Concedes Asylum Overspend Could Top £1bn’. 3 June. http://society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,7991,727599,00.html (accessed 13 August 2002).Google Scholar
  12. Guardian (2003). ‘Blunkett Hits Out at Power of Courts’, 21 February, http://politics. guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4610781,00.html (accessed 13 August 2002).Google Scholar
  13. Hadji-Ristic, P. (n.d.). ‘Migrant Labour Exploited, but Helps Build Economy’, Gemini News, London, http://www.oneworld.org/gemini/freebies/GN34799.html (accessed 20 August 2003).Google Scholar
  14. Hansen, R. (2002). ‘Commentary’ (on Zig Layton Henry), in W. Cornelius, P. L. Martin and J. F. Hollified, Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Helton, A. C. (2002). The Price of Indifference: Refugees and Humanitarian Action in the New Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hollifield, J. F. (1992). Immigrants, Markets and States: The Political Economy of Immigration in Postwar Europe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Home Office (2002). ‘Secure Borders, Safe Haven’, Home Office, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, T. D. (1995). ‘A Human Rights Tragedy: The Cuban and Haitian Refugee Crises Revisited’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 9(3): 479–523.Google Scholar
  19. Joppke, C. (1999). ‘Asylum and State Sovereignty’, in C. Joppke (ed.), Challenge to the Nation State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lavenex, S. (1999). Safe Third Countries. Extending EU Asylum and Immigration Policies to Central and Eastern Europe, Budapest: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Loescher, G. (1993). Beyond Charity: International Cooperation and the Global Refugee Crisis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, S. (2003). ‘The Politics of US Immigration Reform’, Political Quarterly (special issue on immigration), 74(s1): 132–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, S. and A. Schoenholtz (2000). ‘Asylum in Practice: Successes, Failures and Challenges Ahead’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 14(3).Google Scholar
  24. Migration News (2001). Vol. 8, No. 2.Google Scholar
  25. Milne, S. (2002). ‘Declaration of War on Asylum’, Guardian, 23 May.Google Scholar
  26. Morrison, J. and B. Crosland (2001). The Trafficking and Smuggling of Refugees: The End Game in European Asylum Policy? UNHCR New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper, 39, Geneva.Google Scholar
  27. NoborderZone (2002). see http://zone.noborder.org/x11/templ/artikel_det.php?itemid=7 (accessed 22 August 2002).Google Scholar
  28. Perusse, R. I. (1995). Haitian Democracy Restored: 1991–1995, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  29. Salt, J. (1999). ‘Current Trends in International Migration in Europe’, Strasbourg: The Council of Europe (CDMG (99) 10).Google Scholar
  30. Scottish Refugee Council (n.d.), ‘UK Figures’, http://www.scottishrefugee council.org.uk/ Documents/Facts.PDF (accessed 22 September 2003).Google Scholar
  31. Suhrke, A. (1997). ‘Uncertain Globalization: Refugee Movements in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century’, in W. Gungwu (ed.), Global History and Migrations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sydney Morning Herald (2002). ‘Even as “Good Cop” Howard Beats up on the Judiciary’, 13 August, www.smh.com.au (accessed 10 September 2002).Google Scholar
  33. Tassé, R. (1996). Removals: Processes and Peoples in Transition, Ottawa: Citzenship and Immigration Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Thielemann, E. R. (2002). ‘Does Policy Matter? On Governments’ Attempts to Regulate Asylum Flows’, Paper prepared for presentation at the UNU-WIDER conference on ‘Poverty, International Migration and Asylum’, Helsinki, 27–28 September.Google Scholar
  35. Thielemann, E. R. (2003). ‘Between Interests and Norms: Explaining Burden-Sharing in the European Union’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16(3): 253–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Travis, A. (2002). ‘Law Lords Clear Asylum Fast Track’, Guardian, 1 November, http:// society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,7991,823728,00.html (accessed 22 September 2003).Google Scholar
  37. UNHCR (1995). The State of the World’s Refugees 1995: A Humanitarian Agenda, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. UNHCR (2000). The State of the World’s Refugees 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. USCR (US Committee for Refugees) (2000). ‘Country Report: Australia, 2000’, http:// www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/eastasia_pacific/2000/australia.htm.Google Scholar
  40. USCR (US Committee for Refugees) (2002a). ‘Country Report: Australia, 2002’, http:// www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/eastasia_pacific/australia.htm.Google Scholar
  41. USCR (US Committee for Refugees) (2002b). ‘Country Report: Canada, 2002’, http:// www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/amer_carib/canada.htm (accessed 22 September 2003).Google Scholar
  42. USCR (US Committee for Refugees) (2002c). Sea Change: Australia’s New Approach to Asylum-Seekers, Washington, DC, February: 6.Google Scholar
  43. Van Kessel, G. (2001). ‘Global Migration and Asylum’, Forced Migration Review, 10: 10.Google Scholar
  44. Wintour, P. (2001). ‘Deportation Raids “Will Harm Race Relations”‘, Guardian, 11 July, www.guardianunlimited.co.uk (accessed 12 April 2002).Google Scholar
  45. World Refugee Survey (1999). US Committee for Refugees, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations University — World Institute for Development Economics Research 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J. Gibney
  • Randall Hansen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations