King’s College London

Faculty of Arts & Humanities

Coversheet for submission of coursework
(Undergraduate & Taught Postgraduate)

Complete all sections of this form and ensure it is the first page of the document you submit.
Failure to attach the coversheet as required may result in your work not being accepted for
assessment.

Word count, which should be calculated electronically, must be stated accurately below.
For details of what is included in the word count, and penalties incurred by exceeding the word
count limit, please consult the coursework submission policy in the Faculty handbook.

DECLARATION BY STUDENT

This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the
use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the
author concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in
the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the
appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated.
I understand what is meant by plagiarism and have signed at enrolment the declaration
concerning the avoidance of plagiarism.
I understand that plagiarism is a serious academic offence that may result in disciplinary
action being taken.
I understand that I must submit work BEFORE the deadline, and that failure to do so will
result in capped marks.

(This is a letter followed by five digits,

Candidate no. Z 0 9 5 3 0
and can be found on Student Records)

Module Title: Topics in Political Philosophy: The Ethics of Migration

Module Code:
6AANA046
(e.g. 5AABC123 )

Assignment: Why distinguish between refugees and other migrants?

(may be abbreviated)

Assignment tutor/group: Dr Fine

Deadline: 15.05.2019

Date Submitted: 15.05.2019

Word Count: 2385

Your assignment may be used as an example of good practice for other students to refer to in
future. If selected, your assignment will be presented anonymously and may include feedback
comments or the specific grade awarded. Participation is optional and will not affect your grade.
Do you consent to your assignment being used in this way? Please tick the appropriate box below.

YES NO
Why distinguish between refugees and other migrants?

While the distinction is not always clear, there is a division between refugees and other migrants and
the obligations states have to each subset. Although states may have closed borders, or immigration
rules that justify exclusion, it is generally accepted that refugees require a greater level of protection,
and thus states are morally required to accept refugees as the moral requirement of helping refugees
overrides any national immigration law. The distinction between refugees and other migrants exists to
illumine the rights of refugees and give them the special treatment that is owed to them. It is however
not recognised that any economic migrants deserve equal treatment as they also face violations of
their right to an equal or greater extent to refugees, often also losing the voluntarily element of choice
when moving outside their country of nationality.

To understand the distinction between refugees and other migrants, how these terms categorise
groups. According to the UN refugee agency, a refugee is “someone who has been forced to flee his
or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of
persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular
social group”.1 This means that refugees are members of society who have had their fundamental
human rights broken; where for the purpose of this essay I will define human rights as “norms that
aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses”. 2 People who
flee from persecution often are forced to flee because fundamental human rights such as the right to
freedom of opinion and expression, religion, freedom from discrimination  or the right to life, liberty,
and security are broken. “Two-thirds of all refugees worldwide come from just five countries: Syria,
Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia”.3 A refugee then, may pe a person feeling Syria
due to the warfare, or a woman fleeing a country which has sharia-based criminal laws which
prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.

After being granted the refugee status, refugees remain this way until they no longer require
protection; this can result from either a resolution in their home country or becoming a citizen in the
country that they are being given asylum.

States have an obligation to accept refugees arriving on their territory and treat them with respect
regardless of their foreign policy. Even when states have a hostile foreign policy, it is assumed that
they are morally obliged to protect and take charge of refugees due to their diminished rights which
need protecting. The moral reasons for protecting the violated rights of refugees outweigh the state’s
right to exclude potential immigrants and thereby states’ immigration laws are constrained by the
obligation of mutual aid. The obligation is that the country needs to provide for the refugee, not
penalize the refugee for entering the country illegally and be obligated by non-refoulement; meaning,
that the refugee cannot be sent back into possible danger or persecution, guaranteeing that the state
cannot deport the refugee back to the place they are fleeing from. Refugeehood is extremely valuable
considering that it allows refugees to be protected by a state that is not their home state, so that in
essence they are being treated as the citizens of the new state they have sought refuge in.

Upon reaching a certain country and applying for asylum, refugees are temporarily named as asylum
seekers while the state they are in works to understand their journey and reason for reaching their
territory. The state is then able to decide is the asylum seeker is indeed a refugee. It can take up to 6
months (without complications or appeals) before one receives the decision determining whether they
have gained refugee status. In this time, refugees spend their time in abhorrent conditions in detention
centres, without the ability to work, thus being forced onto meagre state benefits. The moment
refugees began to work while being asylum seekers, they would then become economic migrants.

1
https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
2
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
3
https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
Migrants, especially economic migrants, are considered by law to be “fundamentally different from
refugees and, thus, are treated very differently under international law”. 4 Migrants are considered to
have chosen to move from their birth country in order to improve their conditions, get a better job, as
opposed to refugees who are forced to flee their birth country in order to preserve their human rights.
Migrants then, are considered to be people who move from their country into another in order to
improve their economic situation; find a better job, get a better education for their children.

The distinction between economic migrants and refugees, however, is often unclear. While it is true
that refugees have very little to none self-governance, it is a misguided idea to believe that economic
migrants choose their future prospects through real choice and are merely seeking a better life. The
circumstances of a migrant are just as harsh, if not more brutal to that of a refugee. While certain
refugees face deaths by bombs and warfare, economic migrants may face death by starvation or a lack
of access to an adequate system of health care. Like refugees, migrants often use the same routes and
means of transport in their journey, both embarking on a dangerous journey through which they risk
their lives.

Furthermore, it is often that the status of a refugee and an economic migrant overlaps. Often,
economic subjugation results from a certain political climate within a country, “most asylum seekers
therefore, come from countries where economic failure and political instability and persecution and
poverty are inextricably mixed”.5 Furthermore, as there is often a lack of proof of persecution, the
distinction between asylum seekers and economic migrants can rarely be established with certainty.

It seems that like with refugees, states have greater obligations to economic migrants - or rather, they
have obligations which they fail to recognise. The economic migrant is subjected by their country and
supported by prospering Western countries in their actions, either through the supply of weapons,
contributing to natural disasters through greenhouse emissions other nations reap the consequences of,
and the creations and upholding of an economic system that violates the rights of the world’s poor and
disadvantages their countries.6

The distinction is further removed in a lot of cases of refugees who are judged to be economic
migrants. While refugees flee persecution, they often stop on the way to a certain country to gather
money before making their journey onwards to the intended country. For example, one of the first
stops a refugee might make when fleeing from Syria, is in Greece, a neighbouring safe country. They
may work there for a time before they continue their journey to say; France. The moment they take up
work however, they are judged as an economic migrant and no longer a refugee as they are assumed
to have reached the country of the first asylum. Even though the refugee may wish to apply for
asylum in France as they have family there or they know the language, their request can easily now be
denied meaning they lose the protected status they require - due to the lack of self-governance they
hold, they may be sent  back to Greece or any country that is not the country of their origin.
Unfortunately for refugees, “as long as the duty of non-refoulement is not breached, states can come
to bilateral, multilateral, or omnilateral arrangements with one another concerning the distributions of
refugees and responsibilities for refugees”. 7 This therefore means that states still retain sovereignty in
relation to refugees which allows them to collectively share the burden of responsibility, allowing
them to fairly distribute refugees.

4
Ibid
5

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/
01RP05
6
Thomas Pogge. "Are We Violating the Human Rights of the World's Poor?" Yale Human Righs and
Development Journal 14 (2011)
7
David Owen. “Refugees, fairness and taking up the slack: On justice and the International Refugee Regime”.
Moral Philosophy and Politics 3 (2016), 146
It can be seen however that it is not the case that the responsibility of refugees is distributed fairly,
especially as at the end of 2014, developing countries hosted 86% of the refugee population. 8 This is
the result of the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any agreement between states on what a fair system
is to proportionately distribute the refugee population amongst the different states. It seems intuitively
that it certainly should not be the case that the poorer, developing countries should harbour the costs
for refugees alone, or otherwise, developed countries should offer aid and money towards resolving
the problem of migration when they are not taking enough migrants.

Therefore, as it can be seen, distinguishing between refugees and other migrants is troublesome and
impractical to say the least and the two categories largely overlap. As there is more recognition for the
obligations relating to refugees, than there is for economic migrants. These obligations also bring
additional duties. Thereby, distinguishing between refugees and other migrants is necessary in order
for the states to be aware of the duties they are obliged to fulfil to each group.

Different states recognise different duties they are obliged to fulfil for refugees. At the very minimum,
states should provide physical security and the protection and restoration of human rights to refugees.
This means that refugees should have the reassurance that they are no longer persecuted for social or
political reasons, and their human rights are not infringed on. “Ironically, for many persons on the
brink of disaster, refugee status is a privileged position. In contrast to other destitute people, the
refugee is eligible for many forms of international assistance, including material relief, asylum, and
permanent resettlement”.9 It is thus clear that to be recognised as a refugee is far superior to that of an
economic migrant as it allows enriched opportunities, rights and support that other migrants do not
receive.

More critically, although the distinction between the two groups, migrants and refugees is becoming
far less clear, countries are not willing to separate from it. As Kukathas argues, the distinction allows
states to only burden themselves with refugees. States then do not have to consider their obligations to
other migrants, even if these migrants are far more at risk than some refugees. The purpose then, of
“distinguishing between refugees and immigrants is to limit and control the movement of people in a
world in which free movement is not tolerated”. 10

Shacknove however argues that there should be no distinction between migrants and refugees as the
“same reasoning which justifies the persecutee's claim to refugeehood justifies the claims of persons
deprived of all other basic needs as well”.11 If we agree that people in unsuitable living conditions,
living in poverty and corrupt countries which no advancements or developments lacks basic needs
when they don’t have access to education or healthcare, then we accept that they are being deprived of
their basics needs, if this is the case then we should justify the claim that migrants facing these
hardships should face equal treatment to refugees, who are offered education, monetary support and a
right to residence.

I would argue against Shacknove, to say that although the correctly claims that both the duties
towards migrants and refugees should be recognised, it is not the case that the definition of refugees is
too narrow so that it doesn’t encompass other types of threatened society members. Due to the
persecution faced by refugees, and the intentional nature of the violations of their human rights,
limiting their freedom, they deserve their own category. Another category should however be created
to consider the rights of economic migrants whose rights are also eroded. Let us imagine two cases,
the first relates to woman who protests against in favour of homosexual relationships in a country
where these relationships are not permissible. She is now facing legal action and the death penalty and
8
David Owen. “Refugees, fairness and taking up the slack: On justice and the International Refugee Regime”.
Moral Philosophy and Politics 3 (2016), 142
9
Andrew E. Shacknove, ‘Who Is a Refugee?’, Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2, pg. 276
10
Chandran Kukathas. "Are Refugees Special?" in Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and
Membership Edited by Sarah Fine and Leah Ypi. (Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2016) Pg. 9
11
Andrew E. Shacknove, ‘Who Is a Refugee?’, Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2, pg. 277
feels she needs to flee her country. The other case involves a woman who doesn’t have any clean
water in her area, and the nearest clean water source is two miles away. This woman does not have the
means of survival necessary to sustain herself and her family. Only the former is a case sufficient to
be granted refugee status, the other is an economic migrant, and yet they both face issues that restrict
their freedom and survival In fact, one could go as far as to say that the woman who protests in favour
of homosexual relationships is less deserving of the refugee status than the woman on the brink of
survival as contrary to the definition of a refugee, she is making conscious choices while being aware
of the sharia law in her country, and nonetheless she proceeds to break the law to promote her beliefs.
While she should have every right to have her freedom of speech uninfringed, comparatively to the
other example, the homosexual woman has much more control and self-government over her
situation. As the refugee status is too narrow to encompass the woman living without necessities I
propose that there should be more international and regional conventions which would be able to
ascertain that rights of economic migrants should also be protected, especially in the case where they
are heavily violated.

Conclusively, the distinction between migrants and refugees is largely blurred. Both groups face
hardships that qualify as the violation of the rights of humans and basics needs, furthermore, the
economic hardship which forces economic migrants out of their countries often overlaps with social
or political persecution; after all, there are not as many claims of persecution or economic hardships
from developed countries. Since states are not treating these as equal, they confer different duties
arising from obligations to refugees as opposed to economic migrants, making refugees the
“privileged” in society, thanks to the protection that the state offers.

Bibliography

Andrew E. Shacknove, ‘Who Is a Refugee?’, Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2,

Chandran Kukathas. "Are Refugees Special?" in Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of
Movement and Membership Edited by Sarah Fine and Leah Ypi. (Published to Oxford Scholarship
Online: March 2016).
David Owen. “Refugees, fairness and taking up the slack: On justice and the International Refugee
Regime”. Moral Philosophy and Politics 3 (2016).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/r
p/rp0001/01RP05
https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/

Thomas Pogge. "Are We Violating the Human Rights of the World's Poor?" Yale Human Righs and
Development Journal 14 (2011).