Global Human Rights Hub fellows blog

By: Adnan Turan I Jan. 18, 2024

Introduction: The Human Cost of Labels

Imagine a world where your entire identity and fate hinge on a label assigned by someone else. This is the reality for millions of migrants globally, where a simple categorization can mean the difference between safety and danger, dignity and degradation. Categorizing migrants is not merely a bureaucratic or administrative action; it is a profound human rights issue that demands urgent attention and rectification to uphold the dignity and worth of every individual in the global community. 

The Problem with Categorization

Categorizing migrants significantly impacts the legal and moral obligations of receiving states and societies, often leading to a differential treatment that can undermine the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Categorizations create a hierarchy in the reception and treatment of migrants, influencing policy decisions and societal attitudes which result in discrimination and unequal treatment that is not aligned with universal human rights norms (Sigona, 2018).

The debate on migrant categorization points to issues of human rights violations among international efforts like the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1960 Stateless Persons Convention. Categorization, often influenced by global and national political-economic interests, echoes colonial-era orientalist and racial practices. Migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and stateless persons are thus labeled within a hierarchy that perpetuates historical racial 'Othering.' This process reveals underlying Western European racism affecting migration discourse and securitization policies. The "refugee crisis" narrative is torn between humanitarian concerns and the desire to regulate and control migration flows.

The decision-making process, around categorizing migrants is complex. The Global North holds significant power in shaping narratives and policies that deeply influence migrant categorization worldwide. Their dominant position allows them to set rigid criteria for migrant categories, often reflecting their socio-economic interests and security concerns rather than humanitarian needs. This power dynamic is evident in how these countries, through their policy-making and media influence, craft a narrative that often prioritizes skilled over unskilled migrants, and regular over irregular migration. For example, European countries have employed concepts like 'transit countries' and 'suspension' as strategic responses to their perceived loss of control over migration flows. This strategy has led to the development of the Migration Management discourse, shaping policies that often result in the transformation of asylum seekers into 'illegal' immigrants.

This brings us to the core of the perspective, the distribution of power. The decisions made regarding categorization are not simply driven by concerns. The decision-making process about the status of migrants is intertwined with political interests. Powerful nations, motivated by their self-interests may advocate for definitions or criteria that minimize their obligations and maximize their control over migration. Global South countries, often lacking influence in forums find themselves disproportionately burdened since they are frequently closer to crises and have limited capacity to challenge definitions imposed by more influential states. 
 

Human Rights Violations and Migrant Categorization

The categorization of migrants often leads to various forms of human rights violations. For example, migrants can suffer from a denial of civil and political rights such as arbitrary detention, torture, or a lack of due process, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights like the rights to health, housing, or education. The International Justice Resource Center emphasizes that migrants have rights including the right to life, equality and non-discrimination, and protection against arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture. Furthermore, they are entitled to procedural safeguards in individual expulsion proceedings and family rights. However, the reality is that discrimination and abuse based on immigration status are often endorsed by government policies, which constitutes a human rights violation. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR] points out that the vulnerability of migrants to human rights violations stems from multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, inequality, and structural and societal dynamics that diminish and unequal levels of power and enjoyment of rights. 

The EU's response to the Syrian refugee crisis was characterized by unilateral actions and a lack of cohesive policy, leading to criticisms of discriminatory practices and insufficient support. The contrasting responses of the EU to the Syrian and Ukrainian refugee crises not only reflect the complex dynamics of international politics and migration policy but also raise critical issues regarding the adherence to and violation of human rights principles in the treatment of refugees. The differing responses to these two refugee crises highlight issues related to human rights violations. The favorable treatment of Ukrainian refugees compared to Syrian refugees suggests a possible bias based on nationality, ethnicity, or geopolitical considerations. 

Categorization as dehumanization

Migrant categorization often leads to dehumanization, a process where individuals are seen not as persons with their own stories and rights but as mere representatives of a label—such as 'refugees' or 'economic migrants.' This stripping of individuality simplifies complex human narratives, making it easier for societies and governments to deny migrants their complexities and justify discrimination against them based on these narrow labels. Such categorization negatively influences policy, leading to denial of asylum, unjust detention, or deportation without proper regard for human rights. It also hinders societal participation and integration, as migrants are often viewed as outsiders due to their assigned categories, limiting their access to services and legal rights. Furthermore, categorization can lead to the exploitation of migrants as labor sources, subjecting them to poor working conditions and a lack of protection. The resulting vulnerability opens the door to abuse and violence, exacerbating trauma and mental health challenges among migrant populations. Lastly, categorization erodes public empathy, making it difficult for individuals to see the human suffering behind the migration, thus diminishing the impetus for compassionate and humane immigration policies. Overall, the dehumanization inherent in migrant categorization is a grave issue that necessitates a shift towards more empathetic and rights-respecting approaches to migration.

Hierarchy Among Migrant Groups

The categorization of migrants also inadvertently creates hierarchies among migrant groups. Those recognized as ‘refugees’ might be afforded certain protections and sympathies that ‘economic migrants’ do not receive, despite the latter often fleeing equally dire situations such as extreme poverty, climate change, and economic collapse. This hierarchy can foster division and resentment within migrant communities and detract from the solidarity needed to advocate for collective rights.

The categorizations can also be arbitrary and inconsistent, with similar cases often resulting in different outcomes based on the interpretation of laws or the discretion of officials. This inconsistency not only undermines the legitimacy of the categorization system but also contributes to an environment of uncertainty and fear among migrants, who may find themselves or their loved ones suddenly reclassified and facing deportation or loss of rights.

The Ineffectiveness and Trauma of Categorization

Beyond the inadequacy of labels, there's a traumatic dimension to the categorization of migrants. Assigning a category can be a dehumanizing process that forces individuals to relive traumatic events repeatedly, as they must prove their eligibility for protection or rights under a particular status. The requirement to fit into predefined categories can lead to individuals suppressing parts of their story or, conversely, having to emphasize the most traumatic aspects to meet the necessary criteria for assistance or asylum.

This process can have severe psychological impacts. Migrants may experience increased anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder as they navigate the complexities and uncertainties of the immigration system. The stress of uncertain legal status, combined with the pressure to conform to a specific category, can exacerbate the trauma of displacement and migration, leading to long-term mental health issues.

Moving Forward: A Rights-Based Approach

To address the systemic issues leading to human rights violations, it is crucial to develop a system that upholds the rights and dignity of all individuals on the move. This requires a reevaluation of the categorization system, ensuring it is flexible, humane, and responsive to the changing realities of global migration. We must listen to the voices of migrants to inform policies that affect them directly.

Conclusion

The categorization of migrants serves to simplify complex human stories for bureaucratic convenience, often at the expense of human rights and dignity. It is imperative to move beyond these narrow classifications and adopt a more humane and rights-based approach to global migration. Such an approach would prioritize the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals over economic or political interests and contribute to a more equitable and just global society.

As we continue to witness the movement of people across borders, our challenge is to ensure that our policies reflect not only the realities of global migration but also the values we claim to uphold. It is not enough to recognize the failures of our current system; we must be committed to creating a new framework that respects and protects all individuals, regardless of the categories into which they may fall.

References

1.    Nando Sigona (2018) The contested politics of naming in Europe’s “refugee crisis”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41:3, 456-460, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2018.1388423