Must refugees return?

Abstract

It is widely accepted that states have a right to control immigration, but must accept refugees at risk in their home countries. If this is true, perhaps states have a right to deport refugees once their lives are no longer at risk in their home countries. I raise three types of arguments against this claim, and in support of refugees' right to remain. Citizenship-based arguments hold that refugees have a right to obtain citizenship, and with citizenship comes the right to remain. Plans-based arguments hold that refugees have a right to plan their lives, and they will struggle to plan without the right to remain. Reciprocitybased arguments hold that refugees have a right to reciprocal relationships with citizens, far easier if they know they can remain. I reject the first two arguments, and defend the third.

Justice in waiting: The harms and wrongs of temporary refugee protection

“…This section considers four possible arguments against temporary refugee protection. The first two, the plan argument and the reciprocity argument, already feature in the literature (Gerver, 2019). I argue that these two approaches only show that refugees suffer setbacks when placed in temporary protection situations.…”

“…It is often thought that placing people in situations of temporary protection should be avoided because it frustrates people’s ability to make plans. Such an argument begins with the widely shared assumption that ‘a minimally decent life includes the ability to enter social, economic, and romantic relationships with others’ (Gerver, 2019: 7). To be able to enjoy this component of a minimally decent human life requires being able to make plans for yourself and your future.…”

“…She argues that we can imagine situations in which refugees could plan whilst still being removed from the state of asylum. She offers the following example (Gerver, 2019: 8):In a world where refugees were required to move every five years, they could still gain some ties, entering romantic relationships lasting five years, friendships lasting five years, and employment contracts lasting five years. In such a world refugees could even plan for their future if they were aware they would leave after five years.…”

“…Our worries about plans, therefore, do not give the refugee the right to stay in one place. She argues that we need ‘an additional theory explaining why the sorts of ties arising when one remains are better than the ties arising when one moves’ (Gerver, 2019: 8). But what does Gerver’s example mean for our case?…”

Mülteci̇lere Yöneli̇k Kalici Çözümlerden Bi̇ri̇ Olarak Gönüllü Geri̇dönüş

“…Mültecilerin geri dönme hakkının yanı sıra bulundukları ülkelerde "kalma" hakları da gündeme alınmalıdır. Mültecilerin ev sahibi ülkede kalıcı ilişkiler kurabilmek için geri dönüşe zorlanmayacaklarını bilmeye ihtiyaçları vardır (Gerver, 2019).…”