The post-Kosovo European Refugee Crisis: the final part

The sight of hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing their homeland was the defining spectacle of the Kosovo crisis. However, like previous post-Cold War crises such as the Kurdish exodus in 1991 following the end of the Gulf War, Allied victory has not resolved the problem of displacement, just altered the parameters. The return of so many refugees to Kosovo has not stemmed the flow of would-be migrants, some from Kosovo others claiming to be from the province. They have joined the existing tide from other places.

Despite the existence of dictatorships and persecuting regimes, few of the arrivals in southern Italy, let alone those who make their way through safe countries like France to Britain, have serious claims for asylum. Only the Roma refugees from Kosovo formed a clearly persecuted group in the observers’ opinion. In practice it is those with the money to pay people-smugglers and with the daring to take the risks involved primarily young men who make up the bulk of asylum-seekers.

Away from immigration officials, these young men are perfectly willing to explain their economic motivation for coming to Western Europe. Unfortunately, Western European states do not recognize self-improvement as a legitimate reason for admission. In order to gain admittance young men who might well have the energy and initiative, and often the education, to find jobs and contribute to society have to perjure themselves and pretend to be victims of persecution. Since they are often already beholden to criminal organizations for their clandestine transport to Britain, this incentive to lie can only encourage contempt for the law of their adopted country.

Instead of continuing the increasingly farcical and dishonest asylum system, EU and other affluent West European states should consider blanket rejections of appeals for refugee status from a "white list" of states and by those clearly passing from one EU state to another. At the same time, EU should consider adopting a rational regulated immigration and work permit system. In the absence of a coordinated policy by the EU and countries like Switzerland, Great Britain should adopt clear new policies.

The preservation of the right to asylum for genuine refugees is an important obligation for any civilized state. Public support for the duty to provide for refugees can best be maintained by making clear distinctions between the deserving and undeserving applicants.

Many of the problems found across Europe with absconding or unregistered asylum-seekers and migrants could be reduced by a willingness to offer immigration and working rights to candidates who meet clear criteria.

Much of the illegality and crime associated (not least in the public mind) with the exponential growth in asylum applications combined with the Home Office’s inability to process the results could be avoided if Britain and her partners adopted policies which permitted immigration or periods of work which could be readily regulated precisely because the migrants would have fewer incentives to live illegally and on the fringes of society.

Such a system would of course require enforcement. At present, the authorities across Western Europe often talk tough but in practice avoid dealing with the issue of bogus asylum-seekers, treating genuine refugees on a par with illegal immigrants, and hoping that the problem will move elsewhere.

The combination of Western Europe’s economic attractions with continued upheaval from the Balkans to the Middle East suggest that the issue of a growing number of asylum-seekers will continue to test Western politicians. However, the failure to adopt transparently honest and effective policies to distinguish real refugees from economic migrants, or to permit legal immigration while cracking down on the organized crime associated with illegal influxes, can only encourage the very racism which critics of any influx control decry.