Amending the Refugee Convention will not solve problems of crime and injustice

In political debate, deportations are often presented as an obvious and simple method for dealing with crime among people without permanent residency. The idea is that if such a person commits a serious crime, the state should immediately deport the person. At the same time, it is important to ask yourself – what happens after deportation?

Sending a convicted person to a vulnerable country is no solution

If a country sends a convicted person to a country with a weak legal system, political instability or lacking institutions, the exporter has not solved the problem. Because then the country has only moved the problem. 

Furthermore, history shows that exporting criminals does not solve the exporting country's domestic law and order problems.

In some cases, deportations can contribute to new problems such as violence and crime. People who return to societies where functioning social structures or legal institutions are lacking risk being drawn into new conflicts or crime. 

From a global perspective, this means that one country is trying to improve its own security by worsening the security of another. The overall security in the world is not getting better of such behaviors. 

National politics in a global reality

In Sweden, municipalities are sometimes criticized for so-called social dumping, such as when a municipality like Nacka tries to move people with social problems to another municipality, without the receiving municipality accepting responsibility. Most people perceive this as irresponsible, unfair and lacking solidarity.

At the same time, at the international level, states can make decisions that in practice mean that problems are shifted to other countries. When we create migration policies without a global awareness of justice and security, the result is often that we shift problems instead of solving them.

Unfoundedly high tone against migration

This is also noticeable in the EU, given how Swedish and several other governments are communicating about wanting to change the UN Refugee Convention with the aim of making it easier to deport convicted individuals. Migration has become one of the most polarizing issues in European politics over the past two decades. When migration is linked to crime and insecurity increases pressure on politicians to show action. 

But the negative attitude towards immigration is largely based on false myths that we cannot afford immigration. Regulated immigration is usually profitable which it was until around 2015 in Sweden.

However, the result of more or less populist demands often takes the form of symbolic measures. These are arbitrary but insufficient and signal “toughness”. While the effects in practice are limited. At the same time, international rules are criticized as obstacles to national governments and the “will of the people”. 

Safeguard and improve conventions 

International conventions, such as the UN Refugee Convention, were created by the international community to limit authoritarian and arbitrary political decisions from violating basic human rights. The agreements and agreements are created with a view to older history. States have often treated people from other countries and their own countries brutally, unfairly and wrongly. Flight and migration are often necessary for many from time to time. 

After World War II, the world built an international legal system with the aim of protecting people from state abuses. The people of the world wanted to ensure that temporary political majorities could not put certain principles out of play. “Reinterpreting” and weakening the Refugee Convention therefore risks setting a precedent where more states begin to erode international rules that some politicians see as inconvenient.

War, economic inequalities, political instability and climate change, among other things, drive flight and migration.These factors extend far beyond the control of individual states.

Despite this, there is still a lack of institutions that can manage migration in a more coordinated global way. 

The UN refugee agency does extensive work but has limited resources and a limited mandate. The result is an international system that distributes responsibility for refugees very unevenly. Some countries accept large groups of people while others try to avoid responsibility through restrictive policies. This creates both political conflicts and humanitarian crises.

The need for stronger institutions 

Dealing with humanitarian migration in particular requires concrete global solutions.

Instead of weakening the Refugee Convention, the discussion should be about how international institutions can be strengthened. This includes better coordination between states, a fairer distribution of responsibilities, and clearer global rules for managing humanitarian migration.

In this situation, there are also important roles for local levels such as municipalities and cities. Local levels could, through stronger collaboration with the UN and international institutions, contribute to managing humanitarian migration and integration better. In this way, integration and reception become more democratic, inclusive and engaging for people. 

Don't ignore crime

This does not mean that states should ignore crime or security problems. But it does mean that the world's countries must address these problems in a way that does not undermine the international rules we have created to protect people in vulnerable situations. 

In the long run, migration is not just a question of borders or national policies. It is a question of how the world organizes responsibility from local to global levels so that more people can have rights and opportunities for personal development and a safe life in everyday life regardless of where we are on the planet.