The Foreign Service Journal, June 2019

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JUNE 2019 23 Countries manage integration differently. The United States tends to be laissez-faire in assimilating migrants, counting on economic and social pressure for integration. Turning newcomers into citizens has long been one of our greatest strengths. I spent 2018 with a varied group of refugees in an integration course in Germany and can attest that some recent migrants, many from historically non-Christian countries, speak of “integration without assimilation.”They argue that beyond having access to economic and educational opportunities, they should be left alone to live as they please. Their argument is strong on religious liberty grounds, but it raises the risk of divided societies. Are there limits to immi- grant multiculturalism, as some argue? Most European countries define their identities culturally. Danes, for instance, see their society as a social contract with a very specific set of “Danish” rules and values developed over history. Fearing division, Denmark has set controversial new measures to compel, specifically, Muslimmigrant assimilation. Copenhagen requires immigrant children in designated com- munities to attend Danish early childhood education. In 2018 Denmark also banned the burqa and the niqab, two garments associated with conservative Islam. How should we address issues like this in our human rights reports? Policymaking would be easier if one could chart a linear con- nection between higher immigration and voting patterns. But immigration numbers alone don’t explain voter attitudes. Pew Research Center studies indicate that the relative size of immi- grant communities does not always correlate with anti-immigra- tion attitudes; it’s the political lens through which immigration is viewed that defines whether it is seen as a threat. Says Pew: “A third or more in each [European] country surveyed say immi- grants increase the risk of terrorism…with Germans and Italians the most likely to express this view. Within each country, left-right ideology tends to influence these opinions more than populist views do. People on the right are at least 20 percentage points more likely than those on the left to say immigrants increase the risk of terrorism in their country.” The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees B orn in the shadow of the Holocaust, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was a quintes- sential ColdWar treaty. Conceived when successful flight from totalitarian regimes was rare and refugees were often intellectuals who were easily integrated in the richWest, the refugee convention was part of a patchwork of efforts to universalizeWestern human rights standards. The 1967 Optional Protocol amended the 1951 Convention, giving it universal coverage. The convention has since been supplemented by refugee and sub- sidiary protection regimes in several regions, as well as by the progressive development of international human rights law. To the extent that today’s refugee numbers reflect the universalization of human rights worldwide, the explod- ing numbers of asylum-seekers represent policy success. As people everywhere internalize the idea of inalienable rights, the failure of their own societies to protect these rights is no longer simply an individual’s destiny. It’s a reason to seek asylum elsewhere. This is where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees comes into the picture. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, where it coordinates with member-states, UNHCR employs more than 16,000 humanitarian workers worldwide and is the guardian of the refugee convention. The convention defines a refugee as a “person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual resi- dence; has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail him- or herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.” As our understanding of human rights has evolved over the last 70 years, the treaty has evolved, as well. In recent decades a broad expansion of human rights norms has put significant pressure on UNHCR. Not only are more people interested in asserting their human rights, but the list of rights for which protection or asylum status is potentially available has grown (including, for example, gender equality and sexual orientation, among other things). The central challenge for migration policy practitioners fighting to protect asylum as a core attainment of the development of international human rights law is maintaining the viability of the system in the face of the relent- less growth of refugee numbers worldwide, without compromising protection for the vulnerable. —Andrew Erickson