The Foreign Service Journal, June 2019

22 JUNE 2019 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL with immigration. It’s simplistic to deride voter disquiet as racism; in a democracy, citizens have a voice. Whatever people in Sweden decide about how immigration affects their future as a nation, they have a right to their national conversation. While legitimate refugees have no option but flight and a quest for asylum, other migrants have no option but to try to work the system. Seeking asylum in Europe or remaining with- out permission in the United States are now the only alterna- tives for most non-elite would-be immigrants—whether they’re refugees or not. The situation is unsustainable. A Comprehensive Response Is Needed Migration is about people and numbers. In 2004 the United Nations projected that Africa’s population would level off by 2100, at around two billion. Today the U.N. projects Africa’s population will reach 4.5 billion by century’s end. With the pull of our economies combined with the push of migrant despera- tion, there is no sea wide enough nor wall high enough to deter would-be immigrants. Latin America and South Asia are also experiencing dramatic population growth. Today’s migration picture is one of musical chairs. Poor, dys- functional and conflictive countries generate far more emigrants than rich countries can welcome as immigrants. Supply and demand are misaligned; emigrants who can’t become immigrants have nowhere to go. Those who do succeed at immigration will be of different ethnicities, religions and cultures from their new homelands. British academics Roger Eatwell and Matthew Good- win speak of “hyper ethnic change” to describe what is occurring. In National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy (Pelican, 2018), they note: “Public worries over immigration and ethnic change, and the concomitant intellectual debates, look set to intensify rather than fade. This is because hyper ethnic change will not only continue but accelerate.” The arrival of hundreds of thousands on our southern border and the plight of millions of asylum-seekers around the world require informed and coherent policymaking. If nothing else, the changing religious, cultural and ethnic mix of our nation invites reflection. Howmuch dysfunction and injustice in migrant- producing countries can be assuaged by emigrant flight? How do we reduce migrant flows while assuring the skilled immigrants we require? How generously should we assess asylum claims—and on what grounds? How do we ensure our migration policies are not racist, even as voters express increasing concern about immi- grant multiculturalism? Migration today poses unprecedented transnational challenges. With somany people on the move, no responsible policymaker can deny that the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol govern- ing asylum-seekers might require revision. How do we continue to offer asylum to the most critical cases—and what are those cases? How do we distinguish between an asylum-seeker’s flight from a dysfunctional homeland and a “well-founded fear of persecution?” The convention lays considerable responsibility to host refugees upon signatories, and it notably exempts refugees from reciprocity. (Granting a right to a refugee should not be subject to the granting of similar treatment by the refugee’s country of nationality, because refugees do not enjoy the protection of their home state.) What happens when voters endorse politicians rejecting national commitments to refugees under international law? How do we protect migrants fleeing genocide or simple oppression? Restrictive migration policies in place during the 1930s meant that even more people died in the Holocaust. Providing asylum is a moral responsibility. Developing countries in Africa, in particular, already host vast refugee populations. Is it fair for rich countries to close their doors, leaving refugees in countries already strug- gling with widespread poverty?These are core questions of the international order. Varying Attitudes on Immigrants and Integration While Europe has faced vast population shifts in its history, particularly after World War II, for the most part these involved ethnic co-nationals lining up with postwar border changes. Europe’s new generation of immigrants is different. Muslim immigrants to Europe face obstacles to integration that previous migrants did not. Yet Muslim-majority lands are the most likely source of much immigration to Europe. Many Haitians fled their country after the 2010 earthquake left the country in ruins. How does a just migration policy treat people such as these? COURTESYOFANDREWERICKSON