Refugees on their way
to a safe country
Nienke Doornbos
Anne Marie Kuijpers
Khalil Shalmashi
Centre for Migration Law
University of Nijmegen
The Netherlands
September, 2001
Refugees on their way to a safe country
Vluchtelingen op doorreis naar een veilig land
Also available in Dutch
Nienke Doornbos
Anne Marie Kuijpers
Khalil Shalmashi
Centre for Migration Law
University of Nijmegen
The Netherlands
September, 2001
Translated by Florence Tonk
Contents
1.
Introduction 1
The asylum footrace 1
Research questions 2
Methods and approach 2
The choice for Lebanon 3
Terminology 3
Structure of the report 4
2.
Studies on the journey and destinations of refugees 5
The journey and the choice for a specific country 5
The stay in the country of transit 7
Ideas and expectations 8
3.
Leaving the country of origin 9
The route to Lebanon 9
Lebanon's pull factors 10
Push factors in surrounding countries 10
Contacts with smugglers 11
Costs of the journey 12
4.
The stay in Lebanon 14
Shelter, work and income 14
The UNHCR asylum procedure 15
The experiences of respondents with the asylum procedure 17
Detention 17
Safe refuge in Lebanon 19
5.
On to a safe country 20
Travelling on to a Western country 20
Travel options 20
The 'choice' for a particular country 22
Expectations regarding the asylum procedure 23
6.
Summary and conclusion 26
The journey and the choice for a specific country 26
The stay in the country of transit 27
Ideas and expectations 27
Literature 29
1.
Introduction
The asylum footraceFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
'Nothing heard, nothing seen.' Officials from the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization
Department of the Ministry of Justice (IND) experience that during the first interview most asylum
seekers are able to give a fairly detailed account of how they prepared for their journey while in
their country of origin. Yet asylum seekers claim not to remember much from the moment they set
foot on European soil. Often they say not to know which countries they passed through, what their
means of transport looked like, and who brought them to the Netherlands. Asylum seekers may be
reticent in their answers for various reasons. In recent years several restrictive measures have been
taken with the aim of reducing the number of asylum applications (Schuster 2000; Muus 1997).
Because of stipulations on 'safe countries of origin', 'safe third countries', and the sanctions on
transport companies for the transportation of undocumented passengers, many asylum seekers
nowadays attempt to reach their destination by means of illegal entry (Morrison 1998). Smugglers
want to remain untraceable and insist that the asylum seekers withhold any details from their
journey once they arrive in their country of destination (Koser 2000: 104). The terms of the Dublin
Convention 1 result in reticence with asylum seekers concerning their travel routes within Europe.
The implementation of asylum policy since the middle of the 1990s is starting to resemble a
footrace. In fact, two footraces are taking place simultaneously. First of all, a contest between the
different EU-member states in taking restrictive measures to reduce the numbers of asylum
applications. Restrictive measures initiated by one country are soon followed by comparable
regulations in other countries. In the Netherlands different restrictive measures were taken in
response to the developments in its neighbouring countries. In October 1994, for example,
application centres opened where manifestly unfounded claims are processed in a fast-track
procedure. Other examples are the implementation of laws on 'safe countries of origin' (January
1995), 'safe third countries' (February 1995), and on 'undocumented arrivals' (February 1999).
Secondly, the EU as a whole seems to be playing leapfrog with asylum seekers. In the public
debate in Western-European countries, the idea of the 'calculating asylum seeker' is widespread: an
asylum applicant who is well-informed about his options, rights and obligations and who, after
rationally balancing the pros and cons, chooses the best strategy towards his goal of obtaining the
refugee status. 2 In recent years, the networks of smugglers who use certain travel routes have
received growing attention. The Dover-affair, in which 58 Chinese died from suffocation in the back
of a truck when they were smuggled from the Netherlands to Great Britain, particularly brought
the role of smugglers to the attention of policy makers. The role of smugglers using certain
travelroutes raises the question whether the country of destination is the choice of the individual
asylum seeker, or of the smugglers.
The central issues of this paper are the expectations and experiences of refugees in a transit country
1
The Dublin Convention specifies the criteria for establishing which country is responsible for processing claims. In
case an asylum seeker has had the opportunity to apply for asylum in another EU country, he can be sent back to
that country.
2
This image becomes evident, for example, in a report on a round-table discussion among policy makers and experts
on the subject of migration and asylum (Bijleveld & Taselaar 2000).
3
on their journey to a safe country. The report is based on small-scale empirical research carried out
in Lebanon among twenty-one refugees from Iraq and Sudan. The reason for this study is that the
authors wished to achieve a better understanding of the circumstances under which asylum seekers
come to Europe. 3
Research questionsFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Research questions were formulated around three themes:
1.
The journey and the choice for a certain country: Which factors determine the choice for a
particular travel route and a particular country? How does the journey progress from the
country of origin via the transit country to the country of destination? What risks does the
journey involve?
2.
The stay in the transit country: What are the refugees' reasons for staying in a transit
country; for submitting an asylum application with the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), or for choosing an unofficial entranceway into a Western country?
3.
Ideas and expectations: Which ideas and expectations do the refugees in a transit country
have concerning their reception and asylum procedure in certain Western countries? Where
do they base this knowlegde on?
Methods and approachFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
As mentioned above, the study was performed on a small-scale and has a limited scope. Within a
period of one week, twenty-one refugees in Lebanon were interviewed. In addition, we spoke to four
labour migrants from Syria and one refugee from Turkey who has lived in Lebanon for over thirty
years. Moreover, extended interviews were conducted with representatives of different
organizations: UNHCR, the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) 4 , Caritas 5 and the Dutch
Embassy. 6 The term 'respondents' in this report refers to the twenty-one refugees who were
interviewed. The interviews were conducted by the researchers in Arabic, Kurdish or English. The
research population was established as follows: thirteen respondents through a selection by MECC,
six respondents through a selection by Caritas and two respondents through informal contacts. The
respondents are not a representative group of refugees. The selection probably contains a relatively
high number of respondents who have submitted an asylum application at UNHCR. Eighteen
respondents had the Iraqi nationality and three were from Sudan. We interviewed one woman and
eighteen men; the remaining interviews were conducted with families. Ten respondents were
between twenty-five and thirty years of age, two were younger (between twenty and twenty-five),
3
4
This study took place on our own initiative and was funded by the University of Nijmegen.
MECC is a Christian, non-governmental organization that provides aid to refugees, displaced persons, and
migrants. The aid provided to refugees consists, among others, of financial support towards costs of living, medical
care, and in some instances educational assistance.
5
Caritas is a Christian, non-governmental organization that provides aid to migrants. The organization's
6
Our sincere thanks go out to Ms. N. Chahda (Caritas), Ms. L. Nassif (UNHCR), Ms. A. Papazian (MECC), Mr. M.
programmes concern, among others, aid with repatriation, legal assistance and social services in prisons.
Rentenaar (Dutch embassy) and Ms. H. Verouden (Dutch embassy) for the information they provided us with. We
thank Caritas and MECC in particular, for their efforts to bring us into contact with the refugees and to allow us to
use their office for conducting the interviews. We thank the Dutch embassy for giving us the opportunity to further
explain our research and exchange ideas thereon with various experts.
3
three were between thirty and thirty-five, while the age of the remaining respondents (the families
excluded) varied between thirty-five and fifty-five.
We prepared a questionnaire with questions about the journey from the country of origin to
Lebanon, the experiences in Lebanon, plans to travel on to a Western country, and the knowledge
and expectations with regard to the asylum procedure. 7 Not all questions could be asked to each
respondent, as the circumstances were not always appropriate. It seemed, for example,
inappropriate to confront respondents who had only recently arrived in Lebanon and submitted an
application at UNHCR with detailed questions about unoffical routes to Western countries. In some
cases, it was indiscrete to dwell for too long on the wish to travel to certain European countries,
when the person in question had been rejected by UNHCR and did not have the financial means to
travel on. Despite these limitations and the fact that our research population only to a certain
extent reflects the refugee population in Lebanon, some general observations can be made, as many
of the respondents' experiences were confirmed by the organizations mentioned above.
The choice for LebanonFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
We chose Lebanon because it is an important transit country for refugees from Asia, the Middle
East, and North Africa. The advantage of doing research in a transit country, is that refugees are on
the one hand no longer under the immediate pressure of the flight, and on the other hand they have
not yet been absorbed by an asylum procedure in a Western country. Had the asylum seekers, for
instance, been interviewed in the Netherlands, the pressures surrounding the procedure would have
made them more reluctant in their answers. By then the deliberation stage would be behind them
and the choice for the travel route and the country of destination would already have been made. 8 A
similar study could have taken place in other transit countries such as Turkey, Greece, or Italy. An
important consideration in choosing Lebanon was its accessibility to the researchers taking into
account their language skills, knowledge of the region, and the fact that one of them had already
carried out research in Lebanon. Lebanon receives many refugees from the region (between 300,000
and 400,000 Palestinians), but is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, Lebanon
has official and unofficial entryways into European or other Western countries.
TerminologyFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
In this paper we use a social definition of refugee: a person who is fleeing, or has fled out of fear of
bodily harm or violence, or because he is or felt threatened by violence. In the cases where someone
has submitted an asylum claim in a certain country, or with UNHCR, we speak of an
7
8
A copy of the questionnaire is available with the authors upon request.
Koser (2000:96) describes two problems, firstly that many of his respondents were reluctant in their answers
regarding the treatment of their asylum claim, and secondly they gave answers (they thought to be) appropriate or
desirable because of their experiences with being interviewed by official authorities. To some degree these problems
played a role during our interviews, but not to the extent described by him.
3
asylum applicant or asylum seeker. We speak of a recognized refugee when this asylum has been
granted under the terms of the 1951 Geneva Convention. 9
We prefer the terms official and unofficial to the terms legal and illegal as the latter two
imply juridical qualifications. Often, however, it is unclear which right is at issue. What is not
allowed under a national law can be accepted under international law (cf. Morrison 1998: 7). For
instance, a refugee is allowed under international law to cross borders without personal
documentation. This applies to the borders of the country of origin as well as the country of
destination, be it that in the latter case the refugee needs to report to the authorities as soon as
possible. Furthermore, distinctions between legal and illegal can be vague at times, as is the case
with a person who acquires a passport through bribery. When we discuss an official route to a safe
country we mean the route that refugees travel when asylum has been granted, and either UNHCR,
or an embassy offers them the possibility to resettle. The unofficial route means the route that
people travel at their own initiative or with the help of a smuggler, circumventing official refugee
organizations or government agencies.
In this paper we use the term agent or smuggler when describing the person who brings
refugees across the border in exchange for a fee; or who provides specific services such as supplying
forged documents, bribing officials, or accompanying the refugee on his journey (cf. Morrison 1998:
7). 10 In our opinion people smuggling does not always imply a punishable act. In the Netherlands
only people smuggling for profit has been made liable to punishment. 11 'Smuggling' needs to be
distinguished from 'trafficking'. According to Salt (2000: 34) trafficking involves severe forms of
labour exploitation, while the main purpose of smuggling is to facilitate the crossing of a border. 12
In this paper we only speak of smuggling.
Structure of the report Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Paragraph 2 briefly discusses a number of studies that deal with the ways in which refugees reach
the country of destination, and the factors that determine the choice of the country of destination.
The rest of this report chronologically follows the journey of the respondents. Paragraph 3 describes
the departure from the country of origin, the reasons for travelling to Lebanon, and the role of
smugglers during the journey. Paragraph 4 discusses the asylum procedure at UNHCR, and the
problems some applicants encounter with the Lebanese or Syrian authorities. Subsequently,
paragraph 5 describes the knowledge and expectations of the respondents concerning European and
other Western countries, especially with regard to asylum procedures. The report ends with a
summarizing conclusion.
9
The legal ground for refugee status is 'a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion' (article 1 Geneva Convention).
10
Contrary to Morrison, we also consider someone who merely accompanies refugees during their journey and receives
a fee for this as a smuggler. In our definition, not the degree of organization, but the content of the agreement
between the agent and the refugee is of central importance.
11
Article 197a of the Dutch Criminal Code.
12
For this distinction also see Martin & Miller (2000: 969 and 975).
3
2.
Studies on the journey and destinations of refugees
Empirical research on the conditions under which refugees come to the Netherlands, or other
European or Western countries, is scarce. 13 Sometimes, just like our report, it is based on small case
studies. The following paragraph presents a brief overview of the relevant literature.
The journey and the choice for a specific countryFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Research that examines the factors that determine the choice for a specific country, often makes the
distinction between push- and pull factors. Push factors form the background for leaving the
country of origin, while pull factors determine the attractiveness of a specific country of destination.
Böcker & Havinga (1996; also see Havinga & Böcker 1999) distinguish an additional third group of
factors that are of particular influence on refugees and their final destination. These factors entail
the circumstances during the flight. The urgency during the flight out of the country of origin, as
well as the dependence on smugglers, makes the range of options for refugees different than for
regular migrants. 14 In our research we have paid particular attention to the specific push and pull
factors of the country of transit: Lebanon.
Böcker & Havinga specify factors that are important in determining the choice of refugees
for a country of destination: (1) ties between the country of origin and the receiving asylum country,
such as colonial ties, similarities in language, culture and the presence of an immigrant community
which can be used as a social safety net; (2) characteristics of the receiving countries, such as a
democratic image, opportunities to work, and a policy regarding refugees and, as was mentioned
above, (3) circumstances during the flight and the journey such as the accessibility of countries and
the influence exercised by agents. Their study shows that not one of these factors is predominant.
Böcker and Havinga conclude that the characteristics of the countries of destination are less
determining then the situation in which the asylum seeker finds himself in the country of origin
and during his journey. The authors (1999: 58) formulate two hypothetical conclusions:
'The more acute the situation, the less anticipated the flight, the less information on possible options, the
less money available, the fewer the options - the greater the role played by accessibility.' 15
Conversely, Böcker & Havinga state:
'The less acute the situation, the more anticipated the flight, the more information on possible options, the
more money and, the greater the options, implies greater significance of factors related to the ties between
the country of origin and the country of asylum. Key among these will be the existence of a
13
In Great Britain Home Office commissioned two studies, which will be published during the course of 2001: a study
among sixty asylum seekers by V. Robinson & J. Segrott of the University of Wales, and a study by K. Koser & Ch.
Pinkerton of the University College London. Both studies were presented during the conference 'Bridging the
Information Gap' on March 21, 2001 in London.
14
For a recent study of factors in 'regular' migration, see Schoorl et al. 2000.
15
With accessibility the authors mean, for example, transport facilities, visa requirements, the opportunities for
obtaining a (falsified) visa, the prices of tickets etc.
3
settled community of compatriots in a country - friends, family or other; colonial or other historical ties;
familiar language; and political ties between the countries.'
The study by Böcker & Havinga concerns a macro analysis that is based on statistical data and
interviews with representatives of refugee organizations. There are also a few micro level studies
from a 'bottom up' perspective.
Koser (2000; 1997a; 1997b) interviewed 32 Iranian refugees between 1994 and 1996,
discussing the way in which they came to the Netherlands. Koser (2000: 93-94) argues that the
experiences of asylum seekers should be placed in the context of the entire 'migration cycle.' The
'migration cycle' starts when the need arises to flee and submit an asylum application, and ends
once the decision on the asylum application has been made. It entails the events in the country of
origin, the journey, the period following the arrival, and in some cases also the return to the country
of origin. It turns out that during different stages of the migration cycle, asylum seekers have to rely
on various exit- and entry-strategies, such as travelling with a false passport, or hiding in cars and
trucks. In doing so, they curtail obstacles that have been created by European policymakers. Of the
32 respondents in his study, 29 have used the services of a smuggler. They felt that it is becoming
more and more difficult to leave Iran and get to Europe without the help of an agent, especially
when travelling with more than one person at a time. Considering their strategies, the often-used
term 'spontaneous asylum seekers' is not appropriate (Koser 1997a: 157-170).
Having to rely on smugglers on the one hand makes asylum seekers more vulnerable, on the
other hand it often offers them the only opportunity to leave their country of origin. The asylum
seekers become more vulnerable because they have less influence on the journey and the choice for
a country of destination. Decisions are not made by them, but for them. According to Koser, there is
a link between an increasingly restrictive asylum policy, and the smuggling of people. For most of
the respondents the smuggler has removed or curtailed the obstacles such as visa requirements or
border controls, obstacles that would otherwise have made things very difficult for the asylum
seekers. However, people smuggling would also exist outside the context of European asylum policy
and not all asylum seekers use smugglers (Ibid. 2000: 102-103). Koser's findings are supported by
Morrison (1998: 4-7), who points out that asylum seekers in Great Britain are forced to rely on
deceptive or clandestine migration strategies. Deceptive strategies entail that asylum seekers cross
borders in a regular manner but hold back information, or produce forged documents. Clandestine
strategies can mean that border patrols are avoided by hiding people in a vehicle or by crossing the
border in alternative locations. According to Morrison, asylum seekers are forced to rely on these
methods because the legal ways to reach the UK, for example with a visa, are not available to them.
Crawley (1999: 27) also mentions the visa regime as a barrier to asylum seekers. 'It encourages the
use of false documents and deceit to circumvent it, yet the use of these documents is then used to
attack the credibility of asylum seekers.'
At the end of the 1990s, the percentage of asylum seekers that come to the Netherlands
with the help of a smuggler, seems to be higher than at the beginning of the decade. In the
beginning of the 1990s around half of the asylum seekers had sought help from an agent (Hulshof,
De Ridder & Krooneman 1992). In 1996 an average of 80% of the asylum seekers indicated, in the
first hearing with the IND, to have used an agent. From then on this percentage went down to 75%
in 1997, and 66% in 1998 (IND 1998: 12).
3
The stay in the country of transitFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Morrison (1998: 41) remarks indirectly that the refugees' journey is often interrupted, for a
considerable amount of time, in a country of transit. This country is often marked as 'country of first
asylum', or 'safe third country', in asylum procedures. The majority of his 27 respondents has only
discovered during their journey what their final destination would be, however, not all statements
of the respondents were that clear (Ibid.: 35). Koser (2000: 98) describes the lack of control
experienced by his respondents concerning the way in which they have come to the Netherlands.
Some of them had unexpectedly, or out of necessity, spent several weeks or months in a country of
transit because the agent still had to arrange the rest of the journey. 16
The stay in the transit country can take even longer than that. This became evident in
research performed among 159 migrants, including refugees, passing through Turkey. Many of the
respondents in this study made such statements as how he or she had 'planned their move to
Turkey for about a year, has been living in Turkey for almost two years, and is planning to leave for
the country of destination in another year' (IOM 1995: 2). The stay in Turkey was disappointing to
many transit migrants; only 35 % would recommend others to go to Turkey (Ibid.: 33). The transit
migrants in the Russian Federation also found the situation there worse than expected; over half of
the 309 refugees and migrants that were interviewed, planned to travel on to a Western country
(IOM 1994: 37-42). Among the transit migrants were relatively many young, single, and educated
men (IOM 1994: 27-33; IOM 1995: 8-9). 17
Some transit countries are marked as 'safe third country' in asylum procedures. Zwaan &
Bruin (2001) have examined the criteria for the concept of 'safe third country' from a legal point of
view. 18 They regard the formal requirements, towards the question whether a country is safe,
concrete. These requirements include the presence of an asylum procedure, the option of an appeal,
legal aid, and the use of interpreters. From a material standpoint, however, these requirements are
often insufficient according to Zwaan & Bruin. Although the prohibition of refoulement is a central
issue, it remains the question when refoulement occurs, and how many cases of refoulement make a
country into an 'unsafe' third country. At the moment, the Dutch IND does not consider Lebanon as
a 'safe third country'.
16
For studies on the nature and scale of people smuggling in a number of transit countries, see IOM (2000) and Salt
17
In 1994, the series 'Migration Information Programme', of the International Organization for Migration (IOM),
(2000).
contained several reports on transmigration. The reports covered, among others, Bulgaria, Poland, The Czech
Republic and the Ukraine.
18
According to Zwaan & Bruin the criteria that were mentioned in the Resolution about a harmonized approach
regarding the questions concerning 'third receiving countries' were directional in application of, and thinking about
the term 'safe third country': (a) the asylum seeker should not be exposed to threats to his life or freedom in the
sense of article 33 of the Geneva Convention; (b) the asylum seeker in the third country should not be exposed to
torture or inhumane or humiliating treatment; (c) the asylum seeker has been granted protection either in the third
country or has been offered the opportunity at the border of the third country’s territory to request the protection of
the authorities of that country, before he addressed himself to the Member State in which he has claimed asylum, or
clear evidence is present that the asylum seeker can be admitted to a third country; (d) the asylum seeker should be
granted actual protection against refoulement in the third country, in the sense of the Geneva Convention.
3
Ideas and expectationsFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Research done by Doornhein & Dijkhoff (1995: 53-63) shows that most asylum seekers in the
Netherlands do not know what to expect when they end up in an asylum procedure. When asked
about their motives for choosing the Netherlands, the asylum seekers gave four noticeable answers:
'coincidence', 'family living in the Netherlands', 'the option of applying for asylum in the Netherlands', and 'the Netherlands are a democracy'. The Netherlands, however, is first of all chosen for
reasons of safety. All other matters are of secondary importance. This study was based on the
official reports of asylum seekers' hearings made by the IND. It is questionable whether these
answers are specific for the Netherlands or apply to other Western countries as well.
As part of a broad study on the characteristics of asylum seekers and their expectations of
the Netherlands, Hulshof, De Ridder & Krooneman (1992) asked 677 respondents why they
specifically came to the Netherlands and how they perceived the Netherlands when still in their
country of origin. The outcome was that 36% of the respondents deliberately came to the
Netherlands, mostly because of family or fellow-countrymen already present, or because of a
positive picture of Dutch society. Respondents, however, sometimes found it difficult to indicate
whether this was a conscious choice or not; 4% did not answer the question. Sixty percent of
respondents claim to have arrived in the Netherlands by coincidence: the destination was chosen by
their agent; the Netherlands were the only, or first, country of destination; or they stranded in the
Netherlands because of a concurrence of circumstances. Half of all respondents arrived in the
Netherlands with the help of an agent or family members. The higher educated often made a
conscious choice for the Netherlands; they were also better informed and had a clearer picture of the
Netherlands than respondents that were less educated (Ibid. 1992: 69-81 and 161).
In a different case study fourteen refugees from the former Soviet Union were interviewed
about their expectations and ideas of Canada and the Canadian asylum procedure (Barsky 1995:
125-141). Their answers are a variation of the 'American Dream' and can be seen as a justification
for their choice to achieve successful admission into Canada. On the other hand, part of the respondents really expected a warm welcome and a minimum of procedural wrangling from Canadian
authorities, they were disappointed when authorities did not live up to their promise of a better
world (Ibid.: 139).
3
3.
Leaving the country of origin
Refugees leave their homes in the hope to find a safe refuge elsewhere. At that moment they do not
know where their flight might end. How did our respondents do this? Most of them already planned
to come to Lebanon when they left their country of origin.
The route to LebanonFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
The diagram below shows the travelling routes of our twenty-one respondents.
Travel route
Number of respondents
Iraqis
Iraq.. Syria.. Lebanon*)
15
Iraq.. Jordan.. Syria.. Lebanon
3
Sudanese
Sudan.. Egypt.. Syria.. Lebanon
2
Sudan.. Libya.. Syria.. Lebanon
1
*)
Two respondents had tried to travel on via Iran before taking this route.
The three Sudanese respondents travelled through Egypt and Syria or through Libya and Syria.
For the eighteen Iraqi respondents there were two logical routes to reach Lebanon: via Syria or via
Jordan and Syria. The first option almost always leads through Northern Iraq. The majority of the
Iraqi respondents came via this route. A number of respondents initially travelled to Northern Iraq
in the hope to be able to stay there (this area does not fall under the supervision of the Iraqi
authorities). However, they did not feel safe there either. The second reason to travel via Northern
Iraq is that this region offers more options to exit the country, as opposed to Central or Southern
Iraq. Several respondents point out that in Northern Iraq there are more unofficial routes, and that
it is easier to find smugglers there.
Upon leaving the country of origin, most of our respondents do not have a very clear picture
of the country of destination. Their goal is safety. Several factors come into play when taking that
first step (leaving the country of origin) to reach this goal. The respondents have either implicitly or
explicitly given the following reasons for their choice of a certain route, leading out of the country of
origin. An important condition is first of all the accessibility of the route. Some borders are hard to
reach because the landscape is difficult of access (desert, mountains), or because relatively speaking
there are frequent surveillances, or because the area is a war zone, or contains land mines.
Secondly, the financial situation of the refugee is all of considerable influence. Certain routes and
ways of travelling out are more expensive than others. To obtain money some of our respondents
have sold their house and other possessions. The more services the smuggler offers, the more money
the refugee has to pay. Ultimately, one chooses a route, taking into account the possibility of staying
3
in a place of transit for a shorter or longer period of time, planning to travel on from this area to a
safer place of refuge. In most cases more factors come into play such as was the case with this Iraqi
respondent:
'We have chosen Lebanon because Turkey shoots many people at the border. It is safer to go via Lebanon.
Our neighbour tried to escape through Turkey but they brought back his dead body. We became afraid to
take that route. It is also cheaper to go via Lebanon.'
Lebanon's pull factors Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Apart from the aspects discussed above, our respondents have mentioned specific reasons to
especially go to Lebanon. The most mentioned argument is that UNHCR is present in Lebanon and
resettles many refugees in Western countries. Some respondents claim that the unofficial route to
Lebanon is safer and cheaper than a route to another country. A number of respondents also chose
Lebanon because they view it as a more democratic country. Some point out that Lebanon contains
different ethnic and religious groups whom the refugees can join. Three respondents arrived in
Lebanon because of external conditions, for example because the smuggler could only bring refugees
to Lebanon. One respondent told us that if he had met a different smuggler, he might have been in
Turkey now. When choosing their travel route, several other respondents took into account that
Lebanon has access to a seaway to Europe.
Push factors in surrounding countriesFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
To most refugees 'safety' means to find oneself under the protection of a state or an organization.
They claim that they cannot find this form of safety either in Lebanon or in the surrounding
countries such as Syria, or Jordan. Lebanon compares well in relation to the other countries. With
regard to Syria, several Iraqi asylum seekers state that they do not want to live under a regime
similar to Iraq (both countries are ruled by the Baath' party). According to them, the strong-arm of
Saddam Hussein's government can reach over certain national borders; opponents of the regime
would even be persecuted abroad. This has a psychological effect on our respondents: the further
they get from their country of origin, the safer they feel. Some fear to be detained and expelled by
Syrian intelligence. Three Iraqi asylum seekers say that they had in fact been detained in Syria.
Some think that it is more difficult to apply for asylum at UNHCR in Syria; they would need
documentation. UNHCR in Lebanon opposes this claim. Moreover, according to UNHCR, the Syrian
authorities are more tolerant towards Iraqi asylum seekers than the Lebanese authorities, and the
UNHCR in Syria has better access to prisons (also see paragraph 4). Two respondents claim not to
know that there is an office of UNHCR in Syria. One Sudanese respondent also mentions the push
factor that Syria does not offer employment or prospects for the future.
With regard to Iran, Turkey, and Jordan, the Iraqi respondents also point out their fear of
detainment and refoulement. One Iraqi asylum seeker argues that in many Arab countries the
secret services work together. This is why 'you can be picked up just like that'. Two asylum seekers
claim to have been detained in Iran. In Jordan, refugees are supposed to report themselves to the
authorities before they can apply for asylum at UNHCR. It was also claimed that the Jordanian
authorities turn Iraqis in to the Iraqi authorities. According to UNHCR, however, the circumstances
in Jordan are better than in Lebanon because, for example, the Jordanian authorities issue identity
cards. Apart from the fear of detainment and refoulement, most asylum seekers point out the unfree
3
and undemocratic character of the governments in the region. Some do not trust Arabs in general.
One asylum seeker who had just lived through ten years of detention in Iraq, says for example:
'I do not want to stay in an Arab country; I do not trust them.'
One Sudanese asylum seeker does not want to stay in an Islamic country whatsoever. An Iraqi
asylum seeker, who has spent over a year in detention in Lebanon and was tortured there, states:
'Not one Arab country is good for me. From the outside Lebanon looks like a flower, that beautiful. But in
prison I have seen the other side of Lebanon. All Arab countries have regimes that oppress people. You
would not treat an animal the way I was treated.'
Contacts with smugglersFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
All respondents have used smugglers in different stages of their journey. The Iraqi use the word
'qachaqchi' or 'muharrib' for smuggler. 'Muharrib' comes from the word 'harraba', meaning 'helping
someone to run away'. The term 'agent' is rather euphemistic. The common Lebanese term 'semsar'
(literally meaning: broker) possibly has a similar connotation.
Refugees sometimes consider people smuggling a humanitarian act because smugglers save
the lives of many refugees. We asked several respondents whether they would typify the work of
smugglers as mainly driven by humanitarian or commercial motives. The majority believes that the
smuggler only acted out of financial interest. Six respondents claim that the smuggler wholly, or
partially, acted on the grounds of humanitarian beliefs. These respondents had to pay less than
others because of their financial situation or because they knew the smuggler through friends. Yet,
even these respondents sometimes paid a considerable price, such as this Iraqi man who came to
Lebanon with his wife and four children:
'I paid 6000 US$ for the whole family to a Christian Iraqi business man I know. He had arranged it. He
did it to help us. He saved my life. There are smugglers who work with the Government; they do it for
money. He didn't. He didn't want money, but I insisted.'
Another Iraqi respondents says this on the subject:
'A friend of mine who was smuggled from Iraq to Syria knew someone who could help me. This man acted
out of humanitarian beliefs. He did not ask for money. He put me in the trunk of his car and drove me
across the border.'
According to most Iraqi respondents, finding a smuggler is not very difficult in their country. One
usually gets in contact with smugglers through one's social network. Each of the three Sudanese
respondents has left his country by himself, without the help of a smuggler. But most respondents
crossed the border between Syria and Lebanon with the help of a smuggler. In the majority of the
cases the respondents looked for a smuggler themselves. In one case a smuggler approached a
respondent:
3
'I stayed in Syria for three days. Then I paid a Syrian smuggler 100 US$ to bring me to Lebanon. A friend
of mine paid that money. You do not have to look for them, the smugglers in Syria. They come to you in
the neighbourhood Sitt Zainab in Damascus.'
There is always a certain tension and dependence between the refugees and the smugglers. The
refugees do not know the smugglers personally; contacts often go through intermediaries. That is
why they are uncertain whether the smugglers can truly be trusted. Moreover, in most cases the
contacts between the refugees and the agents are solely based on money. The respondents know
examples of smugglers who do not live up to their promises, who extort refugees, let them strand, or
abuse them. Many refugees are especially vulnerable because they often travel without
documentation. They cannot seek protection with the authorities when the smugglers do not live up
to their promises. An Iraqi respondent told us:
'How can you trust the smugglers? I finally joined a group going to Lebanon. I had to pay the smuggler
1400 US$: 300 for each of my children, 450 for myself, and an extra 50 US$ for something unknown. I did
not know the guide, but some people of the group did. He acted out of commercial interest. The smuggler
fed us but it was just some sort of porridge. I don't know how he worked, whether he operated alone or
with others. It was a difficult journey from Northern Iraq to Syria. We walked for three days. We stayed in
Syria for only one day. That is where the guide passed us on to another guide. We did not have to pay this
new guide. We stayed in a house where we arrived in the morning. At night we travelled on. First in a
pickup truck, and afterwards we walked another five hour across the border to Lebanon. There we also
stayed in a house, for one hour. From thereon we travelled by bus to Beirut. I had brought my certificate
of nationality, but lost all papers at the Iraqi-Syrian border. I had put them in a bag. I lost the entire bag
along the way. I also lost my son’s medical report. The smuggler did not act on humanitarian grounds.
When people walked too slowly he would hit them because they could not stay behind. That was for their
own safety because there were patrols. '
Several respondents pointed out to us that smugglers sometimes have close ties to the authorities in
transit countries, or sometimes even belong to the military or political elite of those countries. Two
respondents paid officials of the Syrian intelligence to get into Lebanon. One Iraqi respondent
recounts how he came into Lebanon disguised as a military man. Another Iraqi respondent
recounts:
'The Syrian Mukhabarat (intelligence) brought me from Syria to Lebanon. I travelled with two other
Iraqis. We each paid 100 US$. (...) My friends have Syrian friends with family members in the
Mukhabarat. The Syrian Mukhabarat does this for money. At midnight we crossed the border in a
military car. They dropped us in the middle of Beirut.'
One of our informants told us that the authorities guarding the harbour area in Beirut and Tripoli
are paid in advance by the smugglers who can then leave the harbour without being inspected, and
so reach international waters.
Costs of the journeyFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
3
Our respondents paid prices that varied widely. For the frequently travelled route from Iraq,
through Syria, to Lebanon, the amounts vary from 50 and 350 US$, to higher amounts of 2900 US$
for a family with three children, and 6000 US$ for a family with four children. Most respondents
paid between 50 and 300 US$ per person, from either Iraq or Sudan. The services of smugglers were
limited to pointing the way, or accompanying the respondents across the border. Sometimes food
and shelter were provided. No travel documents were arranged.
Most respondents had to pay the money up front. The price is sometimes reduced when
more people travel together. However, in those cases there is a higher risk of being caught.
Smugglers sometimes hold back the passport or other documents from refugees without means,
until they pay. This happened to a Sudanese respondents who had to pay 200 US$ to be smuggled
from Syria to Lebanon. He never regained his passport.
'I was on the road for five days with this smuggler. Along the way the smuggler asked whether I knew
someone in Lebanon who could pay him. I said I didn't know anyone. Then he locked me up in a room
without food and drink for two days. After two days he returned and opened the door. Then we went on to
Lebanon, but he kept my passport, and I had to call him when I got the money.'
From sources not connected to this study, 19 we know that some smugglers try to gain their clients’
trust by letting the refugee pay half of the sum in the country of departure, and the other half upon
safe arrival in the country of destination. It also happens that a family member or a good friend
guarantees to pay the money as soon as the refugee has reached the country of destination. In our
research we did not encounter such warranties.
19
Interviews that have been conducted as part of the study 'Communication in de asylum procedure' by Nienke
Doornbos and Khalil Shalmashi.
3
4.
The stay in Lebanon
When refugees, sometimes after a trip of days, sometimes after a journey of weeks or months, arrive
in Lebanon, their first worry is to find shelter and work, or income. What follows is a tour past
refugee organizations: UNHCR, the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), or Caritas. The stay
in Lebanon is not without risk. During their stay, ten of our respondents were arrested by Lebanese
authorities because of illegal residence, or efforts to leave the country illegally. Their testimonies
about the circumstances of the arrest and detention make the option of a safe refuge in Lebanon a
questionable affair. These aspects of the stay of asylum seekers in Lebanon will be successively
discussed in the following section.
Shelter, work and incomeFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Upon arrival in Lebanon, most respondents first of all sought contact with other refugees from their
own ethnic community. Because Lebanon has always had a liberal image, and for years attracted
refugees from different countries, almost all ethnic communities, political (opposition) parties and
religious communities are represented in Beirut.
Solidarity and involvement of the refugees amongst each other seems to be considerable:
people lend each other money, share food and blankets, or assist in finding shelter. The vulnerable
position in which refugees find themselves upon arrival, however, also invites abuse. A woman of
Iraqi nationality, who arrived in Lebanon after travelling for twenty days with her husband and
three small children, told us:
'We were sitting in the street, didn't know anyone and didn't have any money. People on the street gave us
1000 Lebanese lire [0.70 US$]. Then a group of Syrians came by and invited us to their home. It turned
out they wanted to bring us to the Syrian intelligence; they receive money for doing that. They took my
oldest child and threatened to keep him. We made a narrow escape.'
Two labour migrants from Syria we met during our study, confirmed that corrupt officials of the
Syrian Intelligence Services sometimes pay money to Syrians for bringing in aliens who have been
smuggled across the border. This doesn't happen very often, and people who get involved with these
practices are generally given the cold shoulder within the Syrian community.
Only Palestinian refugees live in camps in Lebanon. The camp of Sabra and Shatila in
Beirut is in fact a shantytown with structures of corrugated iron. Palestinian refugees fall under the
mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA). 20 There is hardly any form of relief for the other refugees. MECC only supports recognized refugees, however, this support is not sufficient and in principle limited to families. 21 Single
people can only ask for help with MECC in special cases, for example, in case of disablement. Some
rejected asylum seekers are financially supported by Caritas. In a few cases Caritas offers help to
Iraqi asylum seekers who have just arrived in finding shelter and necessities of life.
20
On the position of Palestinian refugees in international law see Takkenberg (1997).
21
In 1999 MECC supported 3,096 people for an amount totalling 1,702,328 US$. MECC Service to Refugees, Displaced
& Migrants, 1999-2000 report, p. 3.
3
Most of the respondents live with their family or some countrymen in a room in one of the
poorest neighbourhoods of Beirut. They tend to rent these from Lebanese for 75 to 150 US$ per
month; considerable amounts in relation to the services available, and the income refugees have.
One relatively well-to-do respondent and his family live in a flat that he rents for 250 US$. Three
respondents have no permanent place of residence; one family that has just arrived sleeps in a
hallway with people that they have gotten acquainted with in Beirut. Two others live in empty
buildings in Saïda, a city south of Beirut. One Sudanese respondent rents a 'room' together with
three other Sudanese, from a Palestinian in a Palestinian refugee camp for 70 US$ per month.
After the civil war (1975-1990), the reconstruction of Beirut offered many job opportunities
in construction. Lebanon has an estimated one million labour migrants, between 600,000 and
700,000 of them being Syrian labour migrants whose status has been legalized by an agreement
between the two countries. 22 In the perceptions of most of our respondents, and of the labour
migrants from Syria we spoke with, there is more work in Lebanon compared to the neighbouring
country Syria. Most of our respondents, however, have a lot of trouble finding work. Employees are
recruited on a daily basis. Only a few respondents have steady employment, and even they are not
certain of a daily income. The work the respondents do varies from porter, to handyman, mechanic,
housepainter, construction worker, and electrician. They have no work permit. Asylum seekers who
have submitted an asylum claim, or have been recognized as a refugee by UNHCR, do not receive a
work permit either. A number of respondents was unable to work because of long-term imprisonment or torture in Lebanon or their country of origin. They received limited financial support from
MECC.
The UNHCR asylum procedureFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
The UNCHR is located in a suburb of Beirut. The refugee organization of the United Nations has
been in Beirut since 1963. Its office processes a maximum of 25 asylum claims per day on two days
of the week. UNHCR is responsible for about 4,000 recognized refugees, mainly from Iraq, Sudan,
and Somalia. The interviews are conducted by six assistant protection officers and in cases of an
appeal by the coordinating protection officer. 23
The procedure at UNHCR begins with filling in the application form. The illiterate can ask
for the help of UNHCR employees. The eligibility section then examines the admissibility of the
claim in a brief interview. A reason for rejecting the claim can be that the applicant has submitted a
claim before and has been rejected either in Lebanon or another country. Another reason for
rejection can be that the applicant has had the opportunity to submit an asylum claim in another
country, but omitted to do so. Applicants, who have stayed in Syria for a certain period, are advised
by UNHCR to return to Syria and submit an asylum claim there. According to UNHCR, the
situation in Syria is significantly better than in Lebanon. Compared to Lebanon, the refugees would
enjoy more freedom there, both in an economical as well as in a social sense. UNHCR in Syria also
has better access to prisons. As was said before, in the perceptions of the respondents the situation
in Lebanon is better. 24 Apart from Syria, UNHCR also considers Egypt and Jordan as 'first
22
MECC, Report on Refugees, Displaced & Migrants Meeting Cairo, 11-15 September 2000, p. 12.
23
The information in this section is, unless specified otherwise, based on an interview with the protection officer and
three resettlement assistants.
24
Considering that three respondents reported the involvement of Syrian intelligence services in their detention (in
one case resulting in refoulement, see section on detention), and taking into consideration the Amnesty
3
countries of asylum'.
After this quick screening, the asylum seekers receive a U.N. card which states that their
claim is under study. Also, an appointment for an interview is made. UNHCR has a backlog in
processing claims. At the beginning of 2001 the usual waiting period for an interview was one year.
During this waiting period, applicants do not receive financial support. Special circumstances can
lead to an earlier interview. Three of the nineteen respondents who had submitted a claim for
asylum with UNHCR obtained an earlier appointment: one respondent who had been detained for
thirteen months and fears another arrest by the Lebanese authorities; one respondent who is in a
poor physical and psychological condition as a result of ten years of torture and detainment in an
underground prison; and one respondent who is a widower and has three children to take care of.
UNHCR decides several weeks after the interview. To the dissatisfaction of a number of
respondents the decisions are motivated neither in writing nor orally. The decisions are displayed
on a list that hangs in a glass display case outside the office. This list only contains the file
numbers, with a notice whether the claim has been accepted or denied. The average recognition rate
is about sixteen percent. For Iraqis the recognition rate is somewhat higher than for the Sudanese.
Claims that do not fall under the Geneva Convention, like manifestly unfounded claims or
claims that are lacking in credibility, are rejected. UNHCR in Beirut says that it does not often
encounter cases that would fall within article 1F of the Convention. 25 After being rejected, an
asylum applicant can lodge an appeal within thirty days. Another official will then interview him.
According to the protection officer, almost all rejected applicants lodge an appeal. Once the appeal is
rejected the procedure has come to an end. Asylum seekers in Lebanon are usually not assisted by
lawyers.
Refugees that have been recognized by UNHCR can, under certain circumstances, be
eligible for resettlement in a Western country. Contrary to the expectations and beliefs held by most
refugees, there is no automatic right to resettlement. Until two or three years ago, only 100 to 150
refugees could be resettled annually. The resettlement programme, however, was revived partly
under pressure of the Lebanese authorities who are trying to combat the influx and stay of refugees
and illegal immigrants. The United States takes in most recognized refugees from Lebanon: in the
year 2000, 1500 refugees were admitted. Additionally, resettlement takes place in Scandinavian
countries, Canada, and Australia. UNHCR makes a pre-selection according to the criteria of the
country of resettlement. The most important criteria are: having (family) ties in the
International Annual Report on Syria (2000) about arrests of foreigners in Syria on political grounds, it cannot, in
our opinion, be ruled out that refugees in Syria may also be at risk of detention, and perhaps, refoulement.
25
This exclusion clause of the Geneva Convention can be applied to people who have committed a crime against peace,
a war crime, or a crime against humanity; have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge
prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; or have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
3
country of destination and opportunities for integration. The quota, however, are also influenced by
the number of asylum seekers that reach the country on their own. 26
The experiences of respondents with the asylum procedureFout! Bladwijzer niet
gedefinieerd.
How succesful were our respondents in their asylum procedures? Nineteen respondents submitted
an asylum claim with UNHCR. One family that had been in Lebanon for less than a month,
hesitates to go to UNHCR. They say that they are afraid to tell their story to UNHCR:
'Iraqis who have been in Lebanon longer, say that the Iraqi authorities will be informed about it.'
Another respondent says he tried several times to submit an asylum claim, but was unable to obtain
an application form. Possibly the explanation for this is the maximum of 25 applications per day, on
the days that UNHCR processes claims.
Of the nineteen claimants, five were accepted as refugees. Ten cases were still pending (two
claimants have been rejected in the first instance and have lodged an appeal), and four were
definitely rejected. The refugees recognized by UNHCR are waiting for resettlement in a Western
country.
During the interviews, two ideas appeared to exist among a number of respondents. First of
all the idea that some claims stand a lesser chance at UNHCR because the person deciding on the
claim has a different ethnic or religious background than the applicant. Some of our respondents
prefer Western or Christian decision makers. And secondly the idea that a 'wasta' (a contact or
bribe) at UNHCR can arrange an early appointment, re-opening of the file, acceptance, or
resettlement. Six respondents referred during the interviews to such rumours which were all from
hearsay. One respondent for instance says:
'The recognition of refugees is all about money around here. I know people who came after me and already
have refugee status. Moreover, there are also people who aren't Iraqis that have been resettled. They pose
as Iraqis. They give money; this is how they arrange it. These were Egyptians and Algerians. I didn't see it
myself but I heard about it. And some who have gone to Europe the illegal way, with false documents,
were sent back.'
UNHCR is aware of these rumours. Internal investigations, inspections by Geneva headquarters,
and investigations by the Lebanese authorities have taken place. None of these investigations came
up with cases of corruption, nor did calls on refugees to report cases of corruption.
DetentionFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
The risk of being arrested and detained by the Lebanese authorities is a big concern for both asylum
seekers and recognized refugees. The U.N. card for recognized refugees does not guarantee a safe
stay. This makes some refugees quite desperate, as is the case with two respondents who claim that,
for safety reasons, they do not want to wait for the UNHCR resettlement procedure. Even though
26
The Netherlands did not invite any refugees from Lebanon in 2000; it did accept 189 people from other countries for
resettlement (Tweede Kamer 2000-2001, 19 637, nr. 559, p. 30). The annual quota of 500 refugees was not achieved,
for reasons unknown to us.
3
they have been recognized as refugees by UNHCR, they consider going to Europe via an unofficial
route. One respondent has spent a year and a half in an underground prison; the other had been
detained for thirteen months and was expelled to North Iraq (and came back again). A total of ten of
the twenty-one respondents were detained in Lebanon. Because of the selection of cases it is
possible that our research population contains a comparatively large number of refugees who have
been detained. However, three aid organizations that we visited confirmed that refugees are
detained and sometimes also sent back to their country of origin. 27 Amnesty International also
makes mention of it: 'Since September 2000 more than 300 asylum-seekers were reportedly forcibly
returned to their country of origin. Almost all had been arrested and detained on charges of illegal
entry and residence in Lebanon.' 28 In a resolution by the Lebanese authorities it was stipulated that
all illegal aliens should have left the country by February 28, 2001. In the past they were given two
months to regularize their status. Amnesty International also mentions that asylum seekers who
have travelled to Lebanon via Syria, run the risk of being brought in front of the Liaison Committee
of the Syrian security forces. 29 According to some of our respondents this committee exerts pressure
on asylum seekers to declare that they agree to return to their country of origin. During their
detention different Iraqi respondents were pressurized into returning to Iraq; two of them referred
to this Syrian committee. One Iraqi respondent was pressurized by Lebanese authorities and
actually sent back to North Iraq. The Syrian authorities monitored the journey and kept him in
detention in Syria.
'I arrived in Lebanon in 1998 and went straight to UNHCR. There I was given a letter to come back in six
months. After six months I got a new letter to come back in a year. In September 1999 however, the police
arrested me on the way home from work because I was staying in Lebanon illegally. They put me in jail
for one year and one month. After much torturing at the office of the Lebanese intelligence service in
September 2000 I agreed that they would send me back to Northern Iraq. I consented because of the
torturing. They sent me back but I returned within five days. In Iraq death is waiting for us. I choose to
die slowly.'
After his return from Northern Iraq this respondent immediately went back to UNHCR in Beirut
where he was granted refugee status within several days. He is now waiting for resettlement.
Aid organizations such as Caritas do not have access to most prisons and detention centres.
An exception is made for the prison of the General Intelligence Service. Although the conditions in
this prison were improved at the end of 2000, compared to Western standards its circumstances are
still deplorable. The cells are underground and often overcrowded. Different respondents recount
that they were given bad food that lacked variety, and that they were subject to maltreatment. One
Iraqi respondents recounts:
27
MECC makes note of it in her publications. See for example Refugees' Situations in Lebanon, Beirut 7 September
2000: 'The general security is implementing severe measures towards migrants and refugees who are arrested at
any time for illegal entry and put in jail for long periods (often exceeding the periods mentioned in the law.' The
Report on Refugees, Displaced and Migrants Meeting makes note that 'even refugees holding a UNHCR card are
also being arrested and detained with the treat of deportation' (p. 8).
28
Lebanon: refugees and asylum-seekers at risk, Amnesty International News Service, 26 February 2001, AI Index
MDE 18/002/2001, p. 1.
29
Ibid.: 2.
3
'I was in the prison of the general intelligence service. We were in a cell with thirteen or fourteen people.
There was no outside window. They even closed the hatch on the door. In June it was so warm that you
could hardly breathe. For a long time you got very little to eat, just a piece of bread. (...) One day a soldier
came in. He asked if I wanted to go back to Iraq. A Syrian delegation was supposed to come. But I was
afraid to go back to Iraq. They would execute me there. That Syrian delegation comes to the prison every
two or three months to send people back to Iraq. These are people who do not have problems, or people
who were forced by torture, to say that they don't have problems. On that particular day I again said that
I did not want to return. Then they told me: 'You are a foreigner. You get two months to leave Lebanon.
But when we find you again, we will put you in jail for three or four years.' In the prison there was also a
friend of mine who had a U.N. card. He had also been there for a year.'
Safe refuge in LebanonFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
As mentioned above, Lebanon offers relief to 300.000 to 400.000 Palestinian refugees. The Lebanese
authorities are apparently not willing to offer long-term relief to other refugees as well. This is clear
from the above-mentioned problems with which refugees in Lebanon are being confronted: the risk
of detention and refoulement, the lack of relief and the fact that the refugees are not eligible for a
residence- or work permit. It also becomes evident from the fact that Lebanon is not a signatory to
the Geneva Convention. Nothing points at Lebanon becoming a signatory in the near future. Both
UNHCR and the relief organizations we spoke with, stress that durable protection in the region is
no realistic option for refugees in the Middle East as long as no solution is found for the Palestinian
question. The IND in the Netherlands acknowledges that Lebanon cannot be considered as a 'safe
third country' at the moment. A stay in Lebanon, therefore, does not have negative consequences on
asylum procedures in the Netherlands.
3
5.
On to a safe country
Travelling on to a Western countryFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Almost all respondents -nineteen out of twenty-one- hope to travel on to a Western country. Two
respondents lost all hope to travel on; they were rejected in last instance by UNCHR and do not
want to try other ways to reach a Western country. The reasons why most respondents want to
travel on to a Western country are a sum of push and pull factors. Most of these have been
discussed above: the push factors that make these respondents leave their country of origin (sense of
insecurity), the pull factors that make Lebanon into a good stopover (relative safety and democracy,
accessibility, and access to official and an official routes to Western countries), and the push factors
that cause the respondents to consider travelling on (the lack of possibilities to acquire a residenceor work permit, the risk of detention and refoulement, and the long waiting period at UNHCR).
As for the pull-factors of Western countries, all of the twenty-one respondents explicitly or
implicitly state that they expect to live in safety and freedom in these countries. Eleven of them
mention safety as the most important reason for wanting to travel on to a Western country. They
associate 'safety' with terms such as 'protection', 'human rights', 'legal residence', 'being treated as a
human being', and 'respect'. A number of them refers in this context to 'peace and quiet', or 'peace of
mind'. The term 'freedom' is often associated with 'safety' but also with the opportunities to study,
work, support the family, and to offer a future to their children. Two respondents say that they have
heard that European countries are 'pleasant countries', with 'fine people'.
Most of the respondents derive their ideas about life in Western countries from stories from
acquaintances, friends, or family in these places, or from stories by other people with family abroad.
One respondent used to travel to Switzerland and England himself. Another respondent says that
Palestinians, who often have family abroad, have been a source of information to him. Two respondents mention the media as a source of information. One of them meant foreign movies that he saw
in Iraq, while the other respondent meant the Lebanese press, as well as TV broadcasts by CNN
and MBC. A respondent, whose brother and friend live in Sweden, has the most rosy picture of a
Western country. They told him that they had had no problems claiming asylum in Sweden. This
respondent said to be dreaming about going to Sweden, and showed us a romantic picture of his
friend standing at a lake at sunset with his arm around his Swedish wife.
Travel optionsFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Although nineteen of the twenty-one respondents foster the hope to travel on to a Western country,
it is questionable whether this is a real option for all of them. The possibilities are limited. As was
said before, there are official and unofficial ways to travel on.
Almost all respondents prefer the official way, which, to most of them, means filing an
application with UNHCR. Only three respondents also considered approaching an embassy with an
asylum claim or a request for resettlement. One respondent abandoned that idea because, according
to him, access to embassies' premises is prohibited. Another respondent, who stated that his case
had not been taken into consideration by UNHCR, considers approaching the American embassy
with an affidavit (a statement of support) from his cousin in the United States. The third
respondent had already approached the Australian embassy, but was rejected because he did not
have any 'close relatives' in Australia. He now wants to try the Norwegian embassy. He prefers
3
resettlement through an embassy to UNHCR because he claims to be afraid of Iraqi informants
whom he believes to be present near UNHCR, yet he does want to try and claim asylum with
UNHCR. Most respondents, however, never considered going to an embassy. Some said to be afraid
to be arrested near embassies by Lebanese or Syrian authorities because of illegal residence. Others
believed that it is not possible to submit asylum claims at embassies. According to one of them there
is a UNHCR rule that only high politicians can request asylum at an embassy. At the Dutch
Embassy it is possible to submit an asylum claim. In practice, this option is hardly used; in the year
2000 only one asylum claim was submitted. Whether fear for arrest - an unfounded fear according
to the Embassy - plays a role here, is unknown.
Only a few respondents appeared to consider the unofficial way. Three respondents stated
that they were actually considering to travel on via unofficial routes. Among them are two refugees
recognized by UNHCR. They fear that resettlement through UNHCR will take too long and that
they may be arrested in the meantime. Both are single men between the age of twenty-five and
thirty-five, victims of torture, who have been detained for over a year because of illegal residence in
Lebanon. One of them has been subjected to refoulement to Northern-Iraq. The third respondent
who is planning to travel on through unofficial ways is a single man, between the age of thirty and
thirty-five, whose case was rejected in last instance by UNHCR. He left his country of origin, Iraq,
in 1987, and has been living in illegality ever since.
Four other respondents stated that they might, at a later stage, consider an attempt to
reach a Western country through unofficial ways. Their cases are still awaiting determination at
UNHCR; these respondents still have their hopes up for resettlement through UNHCR. Only if
their claim is rejected in last instance by UNHCR, they said they might consider travelling on
through unofficial routes. All four respondents are men between the age of twenty-five and thirty,
travelling alone. Two of them spent over a year in detention in Lebanon because of illegal residence.
The other two recently fled Iraq where they claim to have been seriously tortured.
The other respondents considered a journey via unofficial routes too dangerous. Six
respondents whose claims are still pending at UNHCR, explicitly mentioned that they do not want
to travel on using unofficial ways, not even when they are rejected by UNHCR. They considered the
risks too high, a journey overseas too dangerous, and they do not have the money to try safer routes
(by air, for example). Two of them are travelling with small children and considered it too
dangerous, especially for the children. A man between the age of twenty and twenty-five, who, as
the eldest son, has the care over his younger siblings in Iraq, found the risk too high that he would
not survive such a journey. Two other young men stated that they had no money and found a
journey overseas too dangerous. An older, sick man, whose wife and children are still in Iraq, also
did not want to take the risk and hoped for resettlement through UNHCR. Of the four respondents
whose claims had been rejected in final instance by UNHCR, three did not consider travelling on via
unofficial routes. One of them, a young single man, who has been stuck in Lebanon for ten years
without legal residence, considers travelling via an unofficial route too dangerous and morally
unacceptable. Nor does he have the money for it. Yet, he still has his hopes up for the immigration
programme at the American Embassy. Two other respondents who have been rejected by UNHCR,
are travelling with their families and consider an unofficial journey too dangerous for their wives
and daughters. For them, the journey ends in Lebanon.
In summary, the majority prefers the official road through UNHCR, which they consider safest.
Especially the men between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five, who travel alone, are willing to
3
take the risk of an unofficial route. The respondents with responsibilities for children or other
family members consider these risks too high.
The 'choice' for a particular countryFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Most respondents do not prefer a particular country: 'As long as it is safe' tends to be the drift of
almost all of their answers. One respondent would even go to 'the country with the white bears'
(Iceland), if necessary. Another respondent says that to him safety especially means staying in a
non-Arab country; that could even be Africa, despite of the poverty there.
In our questions about the choice for a certain country, we anticipated that the following
factors might play an important role: the presence of family, friends, a migrant community from the
country of origin, the chances of a successful asylum claim, language, and colonial ties (cf. Böcker &
Havinga 1996). It is remarkable that our respondents did mention several of these factors, but only
in second instance. Safety is at the top of their list. Even the presence of family or friends in a
certain country is not the reason for most of them to travel on to that country. A widower with three
small children, hoping for resettlement through UNHCR, describes his situation as follows:
'I have a number of family members in Europe, Sweden and Denmark. If I had the choice I would prefer
the countries in which I have family. They can support me. My children do not have a mother. But
actually, any country would be fine as long as I can live somewhere safely. (...) The most important thing is
that I can put my mind to rest and that my children will have a future.'
It is important to note that a number of respondents say not to be in a position to choose. The choice
for the country of destination is determined by UNHCR in consultation with the countries that
accept the refugees for resettlement. For the recognized refugees in Lebanon this means that most
of them will end up in the United States, Canada, or Australia, and not in European countries.
The unofficial route does not always offer a free choice for the country of destination either.
According to our respondents, the final destination is determined by their financial means, the
smugglers, the escape routes, the destinations of ships, and customs checks. The journey overseas
tends to go to Italy, Greece or Cyprus by ship, after which they travel on to Western or Northern
European countries. A respondent, who has already tried several times to leave Lebanon as a
stowaway, recounts:
'Once I managed to get onto a ship, but the ship went to Turkey! I left before the ship sailed off. A few
more times I managed to get to the harbour. Once, there was a ship to Canada. Another time to Germany
and one to France. But the guard of the ship was at the door from dusk until dawn, so that I couldn't get
in. (..) Some ships berth far away from the harbour. I took a boat to one of the ships with a friend of mine,
but its flag was Turkish. If it had been the flag of a European country, we would have gone in. We pay
attention to the flag. You can also get visa here but they are very expensive. Going to America is very
expensive, a European country costs about 3500 US$. The smugglers can arrange everything. They have
many European passports. You travel with a falsified passport, for example to Venezuela which has a
stopover in the Czech Republic.'
The choice for a country of destination is in the first place a choice for safety, even though the
freedom of choice is limited both in official, and unofficial routes. This does not mean that our
3
respondents do not have preferences. In second instance, ten of them refer to a specific country. The
following countries are mentioned, along with the following associations: Australia (opportunities
for refugees to study and work, however one should have 'close relations'), Canada (quick to grant a
status and Canadian nationality), Denmark (three respondents have family there; two others have
heard that it is a good country for claiming asylum; there is a good 'social security system', and
refugees get the Danish nationality and a passport), Germany (two respondents have family there;
especially Kurds are supposed to be treated well there), Finland (a good country for claiming
asylum, not specified), Great Britain ('country of intellectuals', because of colonial ties), the
Netherlands (two respondents have family there; the presence of Southern Sudanese; good country
for claiming asylum, asylum seekers can choose from different lawyers; there is a good 'social
security system'; and refugees get the Dutch nationality and a passport), Norway (good country for
claiming asylum; not specified), the United States (two respondents have family there; it accepts
many Sudanese; 'pleasant' country), Sweden (two respondents have family there; according to one of
them the best country for claiming asylum; it is supposed to have an admission quota of 80.000
refugees that is only filled by 10.000 applicants).
A number of respondents also mentions a few countries in which they would rather not live:
Germany (because there are already many refugees living there; the chances to obtain asylum are
small, and because Germans are supposedly intolerant to foreigners), Italy (because you do not get a
status there; just a piece of paper for a few months after which you have to leave), Greece (because
of fear for refoulement via Turkey), and Russia (because it supposedly has similar practices to
Saddam Hussein).
Denmark is viewed as the friendliest country to refugees. The Netherlands and Sweden
come in second, with the comment that the Netherlands is possibly mentioned more often because
the researchers are from the Netherlands. It is worth noting that there are opposing opinions about
Germany; to some the presence of many refugees there is a positive factor, while to others this very
fact is a negative factor.
Expectations regarding the asylum procedure Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
In general, the respondents hardly have an idea of the asylum procedures in European countries or
the United States, Canada and Australia. Most of them seem not concerned with the subject
because they focus their hopes for resettlement on UNHCR. Even if some respondents have an idea
at all, it appears to be a limited idea that does not always correspond with reality. Often their
picture is too rosy. Of the twenty-one respondents, eight say that they have no clue about the
asylum procedures in Western countries, seven say to be somewhat informed. The remaining six
respondents were not asked because it was not an appropriate situation to be asking this question.
The idea that respondents have about the asylum procedures in Western countries is
sometimes limited to the general impression that is difficult to claim asylum. One Iraqi woman, for
instance, says that 'those countries do not grant status, but UNHCR does'. Another respondent just
knows about the resettlement procedures at UNHCR. According to him, you only get an
appointment with an embassy through UNHCR; subsequently, everything is arranged within a few
months.
Four respondents claim to know a little more about the asylum procedures in Western countries.
One of them has heard that asylum seekers will be questioned about the problems and the
circumstances under which they left their country. Another respondent says that in Canada you
3
spend your first days in a hotel, after which you are quickly granted a status and Canadian
nationality. In Sweden asylum seekers would also be put in a kind of hotel for the first two days,
after being received by a special unit at the airport. Subsequently, they are placed in a camp, where
they are questioned about their identity, possible family in Sweden, and their reasons for having
fled. Another respondent has heard that all Western countries, except Italy and Greece, place
asylum seekers in a camp, a kind of jail, to judge their situation. After that, a job would be arranged
for them. One highly educated respondent has heard that with a Schengen-visa you can travel in all
EU countries and claim asylum at a police station of your choice. The duration of the procedure
varies according to some respondents from 'fast', to 'two to four months', and 'six months total'.
Nobody has heard of the Dublin Convention. Two respondents, however, know that fingerprints are
taken. One of them has heard that the authorities send you back to the country where your
fingerprints have been taken.
We asked eleven respondents how they expect to be interviewed about their experiences in
the country of origin and their flight. Most of them cannot picture this in detail either. They do
expect, however, to have to recount the entire, true story. One man says: 'I will tell everything that
is on my mind. I am at a stage in which I want people to just understand my situation a little bit.'
Two respondents have heard that some asylum seekers do not tell the entire truth in order to have
a better chance at being granted asylum. They are indignant about that, just as they are indignant
about the fact that some asylum applicants, despite telling their true story, are not granted asylum.
Iraqi Kurds, for instance, are supposed to stand a better chance than Syrian Kurds. Two
respondents believe that their story could become known to the Iraqi authorities. That is why one of
them considers not telling the entire story, out of fear for reprisals against family members who
stayed behind. One family, who has been rejected in final instance by UNHCR, acted out of similar
fears when not telling the entire truth to UNHCR.
The question whether the respondents had heard of the Geneva Convention and how they
interpret the term refugee, was posed to eleven respondents. Only one respondent, the afore
mentioned highly educated man, has heard of the Geneva Convention, and knows that Lebanon is
not a party to it. One Sudanese respondent considers himself a refugee because his passport has
been confiscated by the Sudanese Embassy, following his departure from Sudan. He also claims not
to be able to return to his country because of the civil war. One Iraqi respondent considers himself a
refugee because he could not live in freedom in Iraq and was treated unfairly. It is remarkable that
four respondents do not primarily associate the term refugee with the circumstances in their
country of origin, but with protection. On being asked, one of them declares:
'I have never heard of the Geneva Convention, and I do not consider myself a refugee here. A refugee is
protected, gets a card that confirms this, he is not rounded up. I am a refugee but my environment doesn't
consider me as such.'
To the extent that the respondents have an idea of the asylum procedures in Western countries, this
is based on stories from family, friends, or acquaintances that live there, or on stories from other
people with family abroad. For one Iraqi respondent, an important source of information was a
colleague with a son and daughter in the Netherlands and Denmark. He has already heard of
Schengen visa while in Iraq, where, according to him, they can be bought for 10.000 US$.
Compared to our respondents, two of the migrant workers from Syria whom we interviewed
3
had a more detailed picture of the asylum procedures in Western countries. One of them has heard
from his brother in Germany that the authorities check the identity and nationality of asylum
seekers by asking them questions about the country of origin. These can be questions about the
names of towns, neighbourhoods, communities, provinces, the mayor's name, and the colour of the
taxis. He knows that the police checks luggage and clothing labels to see where someone is from. He
also thinks that asylum seekers have to appear in court and that the entire procedure can take up
to four or five years. The other migrant worker, who also has family in Germany, has heard that one
needs a Schengen visa to get into Europe. When asked 'who is a refugee' one of them answers:
'someone who is repressed and does not have any political and social rights.' He does not want to
consider himself a refugee, because he prefers to live in Syria, even though he feels discriminated
against. When they were to request asylum in a European country, they would consider posing as
Iraqis to stand a better chance. They would not travel to the country of destination directly, because
it could then become evident where they are from. One of them has concrete plans to travel to
Germany within several months on a Schengen visa, and submit an asylum claim.
3
6.
Summary and conclusion
Central to this study are the experiences of refugees in a country of transit (Lebanon). In this smallscale empirical study we mainly paid attention to (1) the journey and the choice for a specific
country, (2) the considerations to submit an asylum claim at UNHCR in the country of transit, or to
choose an unofficial route to a Western country, and (3) the ideas and expectations of refugees
regarding asylum procedures in Western countries. Although the number of respondents (twentyone) is too small for generalizations, and the selection of respondents with regard to their country of
origin, gender, and age is not representative, the findings may contribute to existing studies on
refugees. In a transit country, refugees are not under the immediate pressures surrounding the
flight. Moreover, they have not yet entered the asylum procedures of a Western country. When
asylum seekers are interviewed in the country of destination, they could possibly be more inhibited
under the pressures surrounding the proceedings. After all, by then the deliberation stage has
passed, and the decision regarding the travel routes and the country of destination have already
been taken, either by themselves, or by others.
The journey and the choice for a specific country Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
To most respondents, leaving the country of origin means a limited choice between alternative
routes. At that point the majority already has the plan to go to Lebanon; the continuation of the
journey and the final destination, however, are not fixed yet. The ultimate objectives are usually
defined in general terms such as 'safety', and 'freedom'. None of our respondents, with the exception
of possibly one respondent, who says to dream of Sweden, at this stage has a clear preference for the
country of destination. This finding confirms the research of Hulshof et al. (1992) and Morrison
(1998). Differing from migrants in general, with refugees (at least our respondents), pull factors of a
specific country hardly come into play at the moment of departure. At most they have a general
picture of Western countries as safe and free. Other authors (Böcker & Havinga 1996; Koser 1997a)
have also pointed out that the circumstances during the flight can determine the country of
destination, for example, because the agent determines the destination, or because the refugee is
arrested while in transit, and then claims asylum. In this case, unforeseen circumstances thwart
the refugee’s plans. Our respondents, however, took into account a temporary stay in a country of
transit. They use this stay, among other things, to claim asylum with UNHCR.
All respondents have made use of smugglers on one or more stretches of their journey. The
services of the agent were limited to accompaniment during the journey. The experiences of our
respondents confirm Morrison's findings that people smuggling sometimes takes place in an
organized context, but that it can just as well be the work of friends or family of the refugee. 'Agents
are sometimes viewed as the protector. Most often they are just a service provider, carrying out a
business arrangement in exchange for money.' (1998: 47). After arriving in Lebanon, the
respondents are no longer in contact with the agents who have brought them to Lebanon. They will
contact other smugglers once they decide, at a later stage, to travel to Europe via an unofficial
route. The route that is chosen in that case is especially dependent on the financial position in
3
which the refugee finds himself. From the stories and plans of our respondents one can draw the
conclusion that they run less risks when they have more money to spend. Among our respondents,
the elderly, and families with children are less inclined to take risks compared to single men in the
age category twenty to thirty-five. Virtually all respondents hope to travel on to a Western country:
the United States, Canada, Australia or a Western or Northern European country. At this point the
added value of doing research in a transit country also becomes evident. Many studies are limited to
asylum seekers who have been successful in reaching Europe and submitting an asylum claim.
Research in a country of transit, offers insights into the selection mechanisms that occur during the
journey, and determine who does and who does not reach the country of destination. To our
respondents it is questionable whether they can travel on, or whether Lebanon will be the final
destination. The amount of money available to the respondents, their age, the number of family
members, and their gender, form such selection mechanisms. These factors have nothing to do with
the legitimacy of the asylum claim.
The stay in the country of transitFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Nineteen respondents have submitted an asylum claim with UNHCR in Beirut, and two are
planning to do so. Even if they are all recognized by UNHCR, this does not mean that they are all
eligible for resettlement. This is another moment of selection because the quota regulations and the
criteria for resettlement do not offer access to all refugees. All refugees that entered the country the
unofficial way, including the refugees recognized by UNHCR, run the risk of being arrested and
detained. This happened to ten of our respondents. A number of them was put under pressure by
Lebanese and Syrian authorities to declare not to have had any problems in their country of origin,
so that they could be sent back. One respondent was actually expelled (and came back to Lebanon).
The risk of being arrested as well as the long waiting period with UNHCR, are factors that make
some of our respondents consider unofficial pathways, even (in two cases) after they have obtained
refugee status with UNHCR. We agree with the fact that the IND in the Netherlands does not mark
a stay in Lebanon as a stay in a 'safe third country'.
Ideas and expectationsFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
The respondents hardly have an idea of European or other Western countries. The limited picture
they have, is often too rosy. They also tend to be little occupied with the asylum procedures in
Western countries. The primary concern of our respondents is to be recognized by UNHCR. It seems
that refugees view their journey one stretch at a time. The first obstacle is the departure from the
country of origin. The next stumbling block is to become eligible for resettlement through UNHCR,
or to risk the journey to a European country independently. In the latter case, one will again
consider the options to travel on from Italy, Cypress, or Greece. The perception in the public debate
of the 'calculating' asylum seeker, which was referred to in the introduction, does not apply to our
respondents. Possibly asylum seekers become more informed about the different determination
procedures during a later stage of the journey. However, research done by Doornhein & Dijkhoff
shows that most asylum seekers in the Netherlands also know little about the asylum
determination procedure.
3
To our respondents, arriving in a Western country means arriving in a safe haven. They have
endured the journey and managed to arrive in 'fortress Europe.' Most respondents are not aware
that asylum seekers in Europe have a long, and often difficult determination procedure ahead of
them. To most European countries the asylum application is the point of departure; in the
perception of our respondents coming to a Western country is the point of arrival.
3
Literature
Barsky, R.F. (1995), Arguing the American Dream à la Canada: Former Sovjet Citizens' Justification for their Choice of Host Country. Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 8 (2): 125-141.
Bijleveld, C. & A. Taselaar (2000), Motieven van asielzoekers om naar Nederland te komen. Verslag
van een expertmeeting. Ministerie van Justitie, WODC, onderzoeksnotities nr. 2000/2.
Böcker, A. & T. Havinga (1996), Asylum Migration to the European Union: Patterns of origin and
destination. Nijmegen, Institute for Sociology of Law.
Crawley, H. (1999), Breaking down the barriers. A report on the conduct of asylum interviews at
ports. Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, London.
Doornhein, L. & N. Dijkhoff (1995), Toevlucht zoeken in Nederland. WODC nr. 148, Arnhem.
Havinga, T. & A. Böcker (1999), Country of asylum by choice or by chance: asylum-seekers in
Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Vol. 25 (1): 43-61.
Hulshof, M., L. de Ridder & P. Krooneman (1992), Asielzoekers in Nederland. Amsterdam: Instituut
voor Sociale Geografie Universiteit van Amsterdam.
IND (1998), Keten in kaart. Trends en ontwikkelingen in de vreemdelingenketen in 1998.
IOM (2000), Migrant trafficking in Europe: A review of migrant trafficking and human smuggling in
Europe with case-studies from Hungary, Poland and Ukraine.
IOM (1995), Transit migration in Turkey. Migration Information Programme.
IOM (1995), Transit migration in The Russian Federation. Migration Information Programme.
Koser, K. (2000), Asylum Policies, Trafficking and Vulnerability. International Migration, vol. 38
(3): 91-111.
Koser, K. (1997a), Negotiating entry intro 'fortress Europe': the migration strategies of 'spontaneous' asylum seekers. In: Ph. Muus (ed.), Exclusion and inclusion of refugees in contemporary Europe.
European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations, Utrecht University: 157-170.
Koser, K. (1997b), Social Networks and the Asylum Cycle: The Case of Iranians in the Netherlands.
International Migration Review, vol. 31 (3): 591-611.
Martin, Ph. & M. Miller (2000), Smuggling and Trafficking: A Conference Report. The International
Migration Review, vol. 34 (3): 969-975.
Morrison, J. (1998), The Cost of Survival. The Trafficking of Refugees to the UK. Refugee Council.
Muus, Ph. (ed.; 1997), Exclusion and inclusion of refugees in contemporary Europe. European
Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations, Utrecht University.
Salt, J. (2000), Trafficking and Human Smuggling: A European Perspective. International Migration, vol. 38 (3): 31-56.
Salt, J. & J. Stein (1997), Migration as Business: The Case of Trafficking. International Migration,
vol. 35 (4): 467-494.
Schoorl, J, L. Heering, I. Esveldt, G. Groenewold, R. van der Erf, A. Bosch, H. de Valk en B. de
Bruijn (2000), Push and pull factors of international migration. A comparative report. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Schuster, L. (2000), A Comparative Analysis of the Asylum Policy of Seven European Governments.
Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 13 (1): 118-132.
Takkenberg, A. (1997), The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law. Nijmegen, Reeks
Recht en Samenleving nr. 13.
3
Zwaan, K. & R. Bruin (2001), Opvang in de regio; een veilige abstractie. In: Amnesty International,
Wederzijds wantrouwen; de asielzoeker, de staat en de waarheid, p. 146-157.
3