Book; Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move by Reece Jones 

Instructions

Initial Post ( at least 150 words)

Your initial post for this discussion should focus on Chapter 1 of Violent Borders and respond to the following two prompts: 

1. Explain what you believe to be the most significant argument Jones makes in this chapter and identify what you what you believe to be the most compelling, interesting, or revealing piece of support Jones uses, whether they be facts, statistics, or examples (historical, personal, or others).
2. Research how border policies have changed since the publication of this book (early 2016). Introduce at least one new change to border policy and/or one new or updated fact that you found significant or compelling in your research. (Use the toolbar to link in the URL to your source; you can also use the toolbar to embed any images or videos that you referenced. See Helpful Canvas Guides below).

Reply to Two Posts  (at least50 words for each)

Respond to two of you peers’ posts by acknowledging the significance (and accuracy) of the information presented by your peers, and add on to their work by discussing how it connects to other arguments in the book and/or other additional support from the book or from your research; if you find any contradictory research or have a different understanding of Jones’ argument, it is important to share this with your peers. (Use the toolbar to link in the URL to any source you use; you can also use the toolbar to embed any images or videos that you referenced. See Helpful Canvas Guides below).

Submission and Grading

Discussions are an important tool for the interaction and development of a learning community. Your timely participation is essential. The attached rubric will be used to grade this assignment (please note the criteria for timeliness). To view the rubric, select the gear icon. If you’re using a mobile device, the rubrics can be found in the course navigation menu. 

FirstPEER’S POST

The most significant argument that I read in the chapter was the one to refute the argument about deterring migrants. Politicians in the EU say that if they make it more difficult for people to move into the EU, then fewer people will try to migrate to the EU. The author refutes this saying that the people who are migrating to the EU do not have much of a choice. He goes on to say that since all of the legal methods of immigration are restrictive, the demand for smugglers goes up. Since the smugglers only care about money, they usually do not give refugees good boats to cross the Mediterranean. To add to this, EU countries are not willing to try to help these people because they think that more people will try to immigrate if they know they will be helped by the EU. This claim is also refuted by the author citing that there has not been a drop in the number of people trying to cross the Mediterranean and that the trip was dangerous already, but people still try to get into the EU. As a whole, the most significant argument that I found while reading the chapter was that the people in the EU are not focusing on the real problem around immigration and instead try to blame the smugglers who have taken advantage of the EU’s restrictive border policy for profit. If there was an orderly method of gaining asylum, the rate of smugglers would go down because there would be a way for people to get into the EU without risking their lives.

I looked at the actual 

EU migration policies (Links to an external site.)

 and a 

proposed EU asylum reform (Links to an external site.)

. In my opinion, not much has changed from when the book was written. The asylum reform looks to standardize the asylum process but does not directly make it easier to enter the EU. The EU is willing to do away with the Dublin system in favor of a standard method that will expedite the reviewing of applications. While this seems like a positive change, the proposal also wants to remove more “pull factors” which were mentioned in the book on page 24. Pull factors seem to be factors that encourage more people to migrate (in this case). The EU is also putting more funds into stopping smugglers as well. The plan for the EU still seems to be to blame the smugglers and try to deflect the blame that they should be receiving for trying to isolate the EU more and more. An extra thing I thought about: the removal of smugglers may cause the consolidation of the smuggling market and could create an empire that controls most of the illegal smuggling. That could create more consequences in the future as the government would need to go toe to toe with a large illegal enterprise rather than forcing smaller illegal smugglers out of business by trying to lower the demand for illegal smuggling.

SECOND PEER’S POST

I believe the most significant argument Jones makes in this chapter is that the current method of deterrence fundamentally misunderstands why people migrate, and puts these people in harm’s way. The most compelling bit of evidence Jones uses is an excerpt from the British Somali poet Warsan Shire. The excerpt evokes emotion in the readers, showing them that the people who make these journeys don’t do so like they’re just casually looking for a new place on Zillow. The journeys these people make are done because despite all the risks, staying home is worse than leaving.

A development in border policy since the publication of this book has been in an increase in the extremity of Hungarian border policy, and regard towards immigrants. In march of 2016, Hungary declared a state of emergency, and sent 1500 troops to its borders. This order was extended in 2017 to last through 2018. Furthermore, the Hungary’s internal politics have been pushing farther and farther right, with official statements declaring immigrants both an economic and cultural threat. sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20170831085120/http://wtop.com/europe/2017/08/hungary-extends-state-of-emergency-due-to-migrant-crisis/ (Links to an external site.) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35162515 (Links to an external site.)