The placement of refugees, as well as protective measures against the pandemic, will be one of the most challenging public policy issues of the decade. Thus, it is critical that we take a closer look at past responses to the European refugee crisis and the discrepancies that lie in current immigration and asylum policies. 

The first European refugee crisis took place in the aftermath of the Second World War, when an overwhelming number of persecuted groups, such as Jews and Poles, sought asylum in Western Europe. In the early 1990s, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a second refugee crisis shocked Europe, as more than 2 million refugees fled the former republic.

In order to manage future refugee crises, the Dublin Convention, which was later dubbed the Dublin Regulation, was established by the European Communities in 1990 and came into full effect in 1997. The regime created under the Dublin Convention allows member states to determine whether people seeking asylum are qualified to enter the European Union. The Dublin Convention requires all member states to be responsible for processing the application of asylum seekers. The essential purpose of this regulation is to provide effective and fair protection to refugees by granting them asylum if they are able to satisfy certain criteria. 

As outlined by the regulation, asylum seekers only have one opportunity to apply for entrance: if they are rejected by one member state, they are automatically rejected by all. Additionally, during the process of examination, asylum seekers are required to stay in a detention area, often separated from their families while they await the outcome of their asylum hearings. Lastly, the criteria set by the Dublin Regulation must be strictly followed when determining whether to grant asylum.  

Though these policies were established thirty years ago, they are still in effect today and have a significant effect on outcomes for asylum-seekers. By the end of 2016, around 5.2 million asylum-seekers reached the shores of the European Union. Moreover, over 138,000 refugees successfully reached the EU by sea. Among them, nearly 2,000 drowned during their journey across the Mediterranean. The European Union’s persisting inefficiency in managing these refugee crises are a result of some of the critical flaws of the Dublin Regulation. 

The Dublin Regulation possessed many weaknesses that prevented the system from reaching its ultimate goal, which was to effectively manage refugee flows and ensure the integrity of refugee rights in the process. One of the criteria established by the regulation is that responsibility should be divided equally between member states. However, it is a lengthy process for each asylum seeker’s application to be processed. Additionally, refugees are often registered to their arrival country under the Dublin Regulation, but they often attempt to seek asylum elsewhere due to personal preferences. The regulation also allows countries to transfer migrants to the first EU country of entry. This provision creates problems of inefficiency, overwhelms countries near the outskirts of Europe, and limits the choices of migrants and asylum-seekers.

Thus, in order to manage the large influx of refugees more effectively within the EU, the European Commission proposed various reforms to the original convention, upgrading it to the Dublin II Regulation in 2003, and later the Dublin III Regulation in 2013. The newest reform proposal, Dublin IV, does not overthrow the existing criteria for determining acceptance but implements several additional policies that ensure equal responsibility between EU member states. This action serves to ensure that no single country is obligated to take on an overwhelming number of refugees, which could lead to instability and mismanagement — as seen in Greece, Italy and Spain. However, the proposal is still under consideration and has not fully been implemented into the EU’s immigration system. 

One of the key elements that is missing in the updated Dublin Regulation is the establishment of humanitarian refugee shelters for asylum seekers and their families. Refugee shelters are necessary in order to provide humanitarian relief while asylum-seekers await their hearings. These spaces are usually constructed in response to major threats, such as natural hazards or war-related violence, as well as in response to political coups in less developed countries. 

Therefore, the purpose of these shelters would be to provide a safe area within which refugees can wait for their applications to be processed. Without proper shelter, asylum-seekers often find themselves in a position where they lack fundamental necessities and access to food resources. Furthermore, existing refugee camps are often overcrowded, with limited social distancing in light of COVID-19. Experts believe that such densely populated camps will significantly increase the possibility of virus transmission.  In order to prevent this, the system should be reformed to facilitate the construction of more shelters and incorporate social distancing procedures.

As a part of this proposed policy, each country would be responsible for the creation of these shelters. Additionally, these temporary shelters would be constructed not only with funding from the home country’s national government but also with EU’s financial support. These spaces should also be specifically designed to fulfill the basic needs of asylum seekers by providing resources such as clean water, food and medical services while they await the final migration outcome and approval. The new refugee shelter system should also include measures that prevent family separation and facilitate family reunification.

With overwhelming refugee inflows, one of the major concerns is the safe and timely placement and management of refugees. Currently, many refugees migrating into EU countries are stuck in limbo, with no clear understanding of whether their application is still pending. If the situation is not properly managed, refugees are left stranded as they were in their home countries. EU member states should cooperate to ensure the efficient and timely processing of asylum applications while also allocating humanitarian assistance to those refugees awaiting their asylum outcomes. More specifically, it is important to protect refugees’ human rights by maintaining their safety and dignity throughout the migration processes, values which are enshrined and reaffirmed by the United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees (UNHCR). 

Another significant rationale for the construction of new refugee shelters is to ensure more effective protection of female refugees. Women account for 50% of the total refugee population and are more prone to suffer from rape and sexual harassment. There are often cases when female refugees are held in detention with male refugees, which could significantly increase the risk of abuse. 

There have also been increasing concerns regarding sexual assault committed by security guards and officials at refugee reception centers. Many women face discrimination in their everyday life, and often face dangerous conditions in the countries from which they flee. Therefore, it is critical that shelters provide a safe environment for refugee women. When considering the creation of humanitarian shelters, women’s rights need to be prioritized, especially as vulnerable groups are at higher risks for victimization. The EU must recognize the associated risks affecting women refugees and other vulnerable populations, and reform their asylum system accordingly.

An effective refugee shelter system would operate under the supervision of highly-trained government-selected personnel, humanitarian relief workers, and medical staff. Given the rise of COVID-19, hygienic standards and adequate healthcare should be made a priority within these humanitarian shelters. 

Equipped with necessary resources and prepared to deal with humanitarian relief, refugee shelters in the EU are key to providing refugees with safe and practical transition environments — especially as violence, conflict and the pandemic continue to ravage countries throughout the world. Thus, reexamining and reforming the Dublin Convention is imperative to ensure that the European Union is adequately prepared to manage a refugee crisis in the COVID-19 era.

The post The EU Migrant Crisis and COVID-19: Reexamining the Dublin Regulation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics shows that in 2018, approximately 258 million children of primary and secondary school age were out of school. Now, amid the pandemic, school closures are keeping 1.5 billion children physically out of school across the globe. While some countries have successfully implemented digital learning programs that allow students to receive education instruction from home, many regions don’t have the technical infrastructure to do so.

Although governments across the globe are putting substantial effort into providing remote learning opportunities, responses vary depending on level of income. About 90% of high income countries are providing remote learning opportunities, while only 25% of low income countries offer remote learning platforms. However, the existence of online learning materials does not guarantee easy access or equal opportunity, especially in low and middle income countries where only 36% of residents have access to the internet. Even for those with access to online learning, the education received is inferior to in-person instruction. Thus, it is likely that the transition to remote learning will widen the existing gap between low and middle income countries. 

In both developed and developing countries, schools serve as far more than just literacy centers. For many children, educational facilities are safety nets that offer an escape from child labor or forced marriage, while also providing the benefits of social interaction and nourishment. Studies show that children not enrolled in school are at a higher risk of child labor and starvation.

The World Food Programme estimates that 310 million children in low and middle income countries were fed while at school in 2019. School meals offer a range of benefits for children including increased enrollment, improved nutrition, and alleviation of poverty. The closure of schools as a result of the pandemic means disadvantaged children now face malnourishment, hunger, and diminished learning capacities.

Studies also indicate that school enrollment has a negative correlation with child marriage, especially when it comes to girls. Through the closure of educational facilities, coronavirus has compounded existing gender inequalities and increased the risk of gender-based violence. By further limiting girls’ access to sexual and reproductive health services, COVID-19 has only worsened the health conditions of girls from low income families, subsequently deteriorating their educational attainment. Additionally, economic stress created as a result of the virus coupled with children spending more time at home puts girls at a greater risk of exploitation, child labor, and domestic violence.

While the pandemic affects everyone, its educational impact is more devastating for groups already living in vulnerable situations, such as refugees. Before COVID-19, refugee children were already twice as likely to be out of school than their peers. Now, children living in refugee and displacement camps are at an even greater risk of dropping out due to overcrowding, poor health facilities, and lack of nutrition. Barriers to education have only worsened during the pandemic, tarnishing recent improvements in refugee enrollment rates and jeopardizing efforts made to include refugee learners in national education systems.

Those who were not already enrolled in school are now at a greater risk of never receiving educational instruction. Lack of access to infrastructure and the internet means that refugee children are likely not able to access remote learning programs implemented by governments.

Also at risk of worsened educational quality are children with disabilities. 80% of persons with disabilities live in developing countries where access to education is already an ongoing challenge. Further, international responses to the pandemic have relied heavily on technological solutions involving computers, tablets, and virtual lessons. While remote learning programs are a great alternative for some populations, these lessons often lack accessibility features necessary for learners with disabilities.

Children with disabilities may require additional support typically available to them at school such as care services, assistive technology, or basic education support. Access to these services, in addition to school nutrition programs and inclusive WASH facilities, may be disrupted during lockdown. Children with disabilities are sensitive to disruptions in routine and require additional support to work independently and learn properly. These accommodations are limited or nonexistent for many children with disabilities across the globe, putting them at a greater risk of being left behind in the international response to COVID-19.

The pandemic will have detrimental effects on student learning across the world, with children in developing and low-income countries bearing the brunt of this crisis. Not only has the virus impeded progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, it has also torn apart safety nets for children and exacerbated gaping inequities in global education. 

Now that student learning has transitioned to remote platforms for the foreseeable future, this crisis is not only likely to reverse global gains of increased enrollment rates and learning outcomes, but it will also diminish the capacity for quality learning, leaving the most disadvantaged populations behind. The long-term consequences of this unequal educational distribution are far-reaching and will likely be reflected in worsened poverty, inequality and child hunger, further threatening the viability of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

The post The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Education Inequality appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.