Costs of refugee admission and the ethics of extraterritorial protection

Abstract

Many affluent states seek to discharge their responsibilities to refugees through extraterritorial policies, which limit the number of refugees that they admit whilst contributing to protection in a third country. Is this morally permissible? I argue that under non-ideal circumstances, where states’ non-compliance with their duties to refugees are persistent, such policies can be permissible. However, extraterritorial protection must satisfy two conditions. First, it must come about through bilateral or multilateral agreements. Second, the protection provided must allow for full integration in a new society. I argue that the lower the costs a state bears for admitting refugees to its territory, the higher its contribution to extraterritorial protection must be. This notion of costs is illustrated by exemplifying how refugee admission may impose costs to the self-determination and equality of the hosting state.

Global justice, individual autonomy, and migration policy

“…While this is a serious problem, it is not least because western countries allow it to happen. Should they sign resettlement agreements with safe third countries and impose more strict standards of compliance on the subcontracting parties to ensure respect for the human rights of refugees, the outsourcing of asylum or immigrant admission need not be problematic (Sandelind, 2021). Although this practice seems intuitively wrong, it does not differ that much from a son's decision to pay someone else to take care of his elderly father (Miller, 2016: 88-89).…”

(Not) Hosting Refugees in the EU. Philosophical Perspectives on the 2015-2016 Crisis

“…Even in that case, however, we would still have to introduce at least two provisions to make protection elsewhere schemes morally sound. First, they should be based on bilateral or multilateral agreements (Cherem 2016;Sandelind 2017); it would not be fair to just assume that any of the current host countries in the developing world must keep the refugees without its deliberate and explicit consent. Second, those schemes should guarantee full integration opportunities for refugees in the host society (Sandelind 2017).…”

Setting the Scene

“…In places where asylum seekers, refugee and migrants tend to live in freedom, they are found to be in pitiable conditions below human dignity and honor (The Greek Ombudsman Independent Authority, 2017). These extremely unpalatable circumstances are detrimental to safety and protection of asylum seekers (Sandelind, 2017).…”

“…Although it is assumed that states have the moral justification to exercise discretion in control of the influx of migrants (Carens, 2014), the individual states' policies underlying RSD have been criticized for turning some refugees to illegal immigrants and shielding EU countries from fulfilling their international legal responsibilities (Robila, 2018). In rhetoric, Global North countries show their commitments and dedication to the refugee regime while on the other hand, against humanitarian interests, implement stricter policies on border control and immigration (Orchard, 2016;Sandelind, 2017). In practice, it is observed that states jettison the legal framework for protection of asylum claimants by refusing admission and returning them to a country they used as passage, or the country of origin or another unsafe country without examining whether their claim is genuine or not (Dahlvik, 2018).…”