诱导返回巴基斯坦

U. Mahar
{"title":"诱导返回巴基斯坦","authors":"U. Mahar","doi":"10.5282/UBM/EPUB.74515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Germany welcomed over a million refugees following the so-called ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015. Today, however, seeking asylum in Germany has become ever more difficult. Amongst other ‘undeserving’ economic refugees, the Afghans and Pakistanis are suffering from a shift in the German asylum regime that aims to restrict migration from ‘safe countries.’ As elsewhere in Europe, asylum in Germany is increasingly being defined by narrow ideas of deservingness and humanitarianism to seek out ‘deserving’ political refugees. Simultaneously, two methods for the removal of rejected asylum seekers are being practised to deter ‘undeserving’ refugees: namely, deportations and ‘voluntary’ returns. Focusing on the latter form of removal, I scrutinize the voluntariness and sustainability of ‘voluntary’ returns to Pakistan in this essay. I start by questioning contemporary ideas of deservingness when it comes to the right to be mobile, and provocatively try to blur the alleged humanitarian division between two categories of mobile bodies: the ‘deserving’ political refugee vis-a-vis the ‘underserving’ economic refugee. Then, with the help of ethnographic material from my ongoing research and three measures or scales of assessment (choice, information and assistance), I take a critical look at ‘voluntary’ returns from Germany. In doing so, I discuss the sustainability and ethics of inducing return through such modes of repatriation to Pakistan.","PeriodicalId":398981,"journal":{"name":"The South Asianist","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inducing return to Pakistan\",\"authors\":\"U. Mahar\",\"doi\":\"10.5282/UBM/EPUB.74515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Germany welcomed over a million refugees following the so-called ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015. Today, however, seeking asylum in Germany has become ever more difficult. Amongst other ‘undeserving’ economic refugees, the Afghans and Pakistanis are suffering from a shift in the German asylum regime that aims to restrict migration from ‘safe countries.’ As elsewhere in Europe, asylum in Germany is increasingly being defined by narrow ideas of deservingness and humanitarianism to seek out ‘deserving’ political refugees. Simultaneously, two methods for the removal of rejected asylum seekers are being practised to deter ‘undeserving’ refugees: namely, deportations and ‘voluntary’ returns. Focusing on the latter form of removal, I scrutinize the voluntariness and sustainability of ‘voluntary’ returns to Pakistan in this essay. I start by questioning contemporary ideas of deservingness when it comes to the right to be mobile, and provocatively try to blur the alleged humanitarian division between two categories of mobile bodies: the ‘deserving’ political refugee vis-a-vis the ‘underserving’ economic refugee. Then, with the help of ethnographic material from my ongoing research and three measures or scales of assessment (choice, information and assistance), I take a critical look at ‘voluntary’ returns from Germany. In doing so, I discuss the sustainability and ethics of inducing return through such modes of repatriation to Pakistan.\",\"PeriodicalId\":398981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The South Asianist\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The South Asianist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5282/UBM/EPUB.74515\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The South Asianist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5282/UBM/EPUB.74515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2015年所谓的“漫长的移民之夏”之后,德国迎来了100多万难民。然而,如今在德国寻求庇护变得更加困难。在其他“不值得”的经济难民中,阿富汗人和巴基斯坦人正遭受德国庇护制度的转变,该制度旨在限制来自“安全国家”的移民。与欧洲其他地方一样,德国的庇护越来越多地被狭隘的“应得性”和人道主义观念所定义,以寻找“应得的”政治难民。同时,正在采取两种方法驱逐被拒绝的寻求庇护者,以阻止“不值得”的难民:即驱逐出境和“自愿”返回。针对后一种形式的遣返,我在这篇文章中仔细审查了“自愿”返回巴基斯坦的自愿性和可持续性。我首先质疑当代关于流动权利的观念,并试图模糊两类流动机构之间所谓的人道主义划分:“应得的”政治难民与“服务不足的”经济难民。然后,在我正在进行的研究中的人种学材料和三个评估尺度(选择、信息和援助)的帮助下,我对德国的“自愿”回报进行了批判性的审视。在此过程中,我讨论了通过这种遣返模式诱导返回巴基斯坦的可持续性和道德规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Inducing return to Pakistan
Germany welcomed over a million refugees following the so-called ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015. Today, however, seeking asylum in Germany has become ever more difficult. Amongst other ‘undeserving’ economic refugees, the Afghans and Pakistanis are suffering from a shift in the German asylum regime that aims to restrict migration from ‘safe countries.’ As elsewhere in Europe, asylum in Germany is increasingly being defined by narrow ideas of deservingness and humanitarianism to seek out ‘deserving’ political refugees. Simultaneously, two methods for the removal of rejected asylum seekers are being practised to deter ‘undeserving’ refugees: namely, deportations and ‘voluntary’ returns. Focusing on the latter form of removal, I scrutinize the voluntariness and sustainability of ‘voluntary’ returns to Pakistan in this essay. I start by questioning contemporary ideas of deservingness when it comes to the right to be mobile, and provocatively try to blur the alleged humanitarian division between two categories of mobile bodies: the ‘deserving’ political refugee vis-a-vis the ‘underserving’ economic refugee. Then, with the help of ethnographic material from my ongoing research and three measures or scales of assessment (choice, information and assistance), I take a critical look at ‘voluntary’ returns from Germany. In doing so, I discuss the sustainability and ethics of inducing return through such modes of repatriation to Pakistan.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inducing return to Pakistan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1