Abstract
AbstractThis article investigates recently imposed restrictions in the asylum regimes in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The purpose of the paper is twofold. First, we aim to identify general changes in asylum policies and asylum legislation. Second, we discuss and compare the policy tools, practices and legislation that have undermined the rights of unaccompanied Afghan minors. We also observe new tools of internal and external deterrence and restrictive asylum policies, combined with tighter border controls. In the case of adult asylum seekers from Afghanistan, high rejection rates and deportations were used for years as an important tool of deterrence. However, these tools were seldom used against unaccompanied Afghan minors before the large influx of asylum seekers in 2015. Since 2015, increased use of rejections, combined with temporary protections, have emerged as the major tools for restriction. We identify similarities and differences in the policy restrictions targeting unaccompanied minors between the countries. Although we identify some recent diverging trends in Scandinavian asylum policies regarding unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan, the general trend of policy restrictions still prevails in all three countries.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography,Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography
Reference60 articles.
1. Allsopp, J., & Chase, E. (2019). Best interests, durable solutions and belonging: Policy discourses shaping the futures of unaccompanied migrant and refugee minors coming of age in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(2), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1404265.
2. Amnesty International (2018). European states should stop forcing people to danger in Afghanistan. Public Statement. Index: ASA 11/9262/2018, 8 October 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1192622018ENGLISH.pdf.
3. Bech, E. C., Borevi, K., & Mouritsen, P. (2017). A ‘civic turn’ in Scandinavian family migration policies? Comparing Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Comparative Migration Studies, 5(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-016-0046-7.
4. Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2017). Refuge: Transforming a broken refugee system. Penguin UK.
5. Bosniak, L. (2007). Varieties of citizenship. Fordham Law Review, 75(5), 2449–2453. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss5/5.
Cited by
15 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献