| Summary/Abstract |
The world is today in the grip of the worst forced migration crisis since the end of the Second World War, with tens of millions driven from their homes by conflict. Yet the global system meant to provide protection to the displaced continues to privilege the interests of nation-states rather than those of refugees and has resulted in less willingness by many countries to accept refugees for resettlement. The arrival – actual or potential – of large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers continues to spur a backlash against them, fuelled by fears of security threats, economic costs, and a lack of integration of newcomers. This situation has combined with xenophobia, racism, and broader cultural anxieties and led to a rising tide of nativist populism and even less welcome for those seeking sanctuary. Whereas by the late 1990 s the dominant logic governing refugee protections – at least in name if not in practice – was centred on multilateralism and humanitarian obligations, today there is a more explicit prominence of national interests in refugee policies. In this paper I argue that the continued dominance of nation-state centric priorities is indicative of the fragility of the global refugee regime. I use the example of Canadian and US responses to the Syrian refugee crisis and interviews with officials in each country to illustrate the primacy of national interests rather than international agreements and norms. The US chose to limit and eventually bar most Syrians from resettlement whereas Canada chose to accept a large number over a short period of time. I argue that both cases reveal similar patterns and logics, if not outcomes and an increasing alignment between border controls and immigration policy. I consider what this means for the future of refugee resettlement in North America and for the global refugee regime more broadly.
|