The Trajectory of Refugee and Immigrant Rights: Genesis, Evolution, and Devolution

 

Can you spot where I inserted Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus? 

Full disclosure: The following is the distillation and final conclusion of an investigation I launched using Perplexity AI beginning with the questions:

How many third countries like Rwanda and El Salvador are accepting deported migrants and undesirables? Who is sending them there? Is there a plan to deport Palestinians to such a country? This is immoral. Is it legal? Why are recipient countries hosting them?

These initial questions, or queries as Perplexity calls them, were followed by an additional 22 such queries, culminating in what you see below. If you want to see how it was derived, just click on the first of the queries above (in redish-brown). Doing so will also provide insights as to how I use Perplexity AI, and the many clickable sources (small numbers and large blocks at the top) that Perplexity used for the information it provided. Each of the additional 22 queries will also provide insights into many aspects of the refugee situation that I explored. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

The Trajectory of Refugee and Immigrant Rights: Genesis, Evolution, and Devolution

Over the past several decades, internationally recognized refugee and immigrant rights have profoundly evolved, but in the past 10 to 20 years, especially since the 2015 migration crises, there has been a measurable erosion in both Europe and North America.

Genesis of Refugee and Immigrant Rights

The legal framework protecting refugees originated in the aftermath of World War II, primarily shaped by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. These instruments established the principle of non-refoulement—prohibiting countries from returning refugees to territories where they face serious threats—and outlined rights to seek asylum and humane treatment.

However, these early frameworks were largely conceived within a Eurocentric context, primarily to address European displacement caused by war. The applicability of these rights to non-Western refugees was often limited or overlooked, reflecting Cold War geopolitics and racialized considerations. Many refugees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East were treated as political or economic migrants rather than protected persons, and their rights were less robustly defended internationally. Over time, this has been challenged, but legacy biases and inconsistencies persist.

Devolution of Rights in Europe

1. 2015 European Migrant Crisis as a Turning Point
   The arrival of over 1.3 million asylum seekers in 2015—mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq—triggered significant strains on EU member states. Initial responses ranged from open-door policies (notably Germany’s) to border closures, militarized controls, and increasingly restrictive asylum and immigration rules across the continent

     2. Gradual Erosion of Refugee Protections  

Following 2015, European governments shifted towards securitization of migration, tightening asylum procedures, limiting legal pathways, increasing use of detention, and accelerating deportations. Emerging policies include the expanding use of border procedures that often deny full access to asylum, summary rejections of claims, and restrictions on family reunification. 

    3.  Externalization and Offshoring of Migration Control

A prominent feature has been the externalization of border control, whereby the EU and states like the US negotiate migration containment agreements with third countries—often with poor human rights records (Libya, Turkey, Rwanda)—in exchange for financial aid or diplomatic favors. These third countries become holding zones or deportation destinations, raising legal and moral concerns about refoulement and commodification of refugees.

    4. Humanitarian Impact and Rights Violations

Across the EU and beyond, migrant detention centers, pushbacks at borders, and restrictive policies have resulted in widespread allegations of abuse, neglect, arbitrary detention, and breaches of international refugee rights. Detention without procedural safeguards, denial of safe asylum access, and exposure to harm have become common complaints.

     5. Political Backlash and Populism

Rising anti-immigrant political movements, nationalist parties, and public fears have driven harsher migration controls. Governments have capitalized on security rhetoric and migration fears to justify rights rollbacks and limit asylum access. The EU’s democratic legal framework faces significant tension balancing sovereignty, security, and human rights.

    6. Hybrid Warfare and Weaponization of Refugees

Migration increasingly intersects with geopolitical conflicts, as seen in Russia and Belarus’s deliberate use of migrants as hybrid warfare tools against the EU, further complicating rights enforcement, protection, and political discourse.

    7. Calls for Reform and Accountability

Despite setbacks, international organizations, refugee advocates, and sections of civil society press for restoring protections, safeguarding non-refoulement, improving responsibility-sharing, and enhancing legal pathways. Yet political will and consensus remain elusive.

Devolution of Rights in North America

North America, particularly the United States and Canada, also saw substantial backsliding. In the US, refugee admissions dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, asylum procedures were restricted, and enforcement measures increased, including controversial programs like “Remain in Mexico” and mass deportations. Family separations, interior enforcement, and use of detention and deportation expanded, while legal appeals and protections were curtailed. Migrants and asylum seekers were criminalized.

Canada experienced a reduction in refugee resettlement commitments and slowdowns in family reunifications, undermining its traditionally strong refugee protection credentials. Both countries implemented policies that restricted access to asylum and fostered insecurity among migrant populations.

Complexities and Perspectives

The reality of refugee and immigrant rights is complex and influenced by competing values: national sovereignty, security, humanitarian concerns, and political pressures. Cases like the Poland-Belarus border crisis illustrate the tensions between state security claims and the rights of vulnerable migrants caught in geopolitical struggles. The actions of states like Belarus weaponizing migrants, and the harsh responses of states like Poland, show a fraught environment where human rights are often sacrificed to geopolitical and domestic political agendas.

Ostensibly legal frameworks continue to provide foundational protections, but their implementation is uneven and often overwhelmed by crises and political calculations. The biases and political narratives shaping interpretations of these rights demand critical scrutiny and renewed commitment to unbiased, rights-based policy and practice.