Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for immigration

immigration

Passports and the New Cold War

by

By the latter half of the Trump administration, punditry was firmly centred on the development of a new Cold War. While some focus on a revisionist Russia, others see the primary conflict of the 21st century as between China and the United States. Concerning the US-China conflict, most of the attention has been paid to the basic geopolitical struggle between an established hegemon and a rising power. More recently, there has been a focus on how each offer competing systems of governance to the world: authoritarianism and democracy. Against this backdrop, an assertive China, ever-conscious of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), is beginning to resemble the Soviet Union in one important facet: the movement of people.

Winston Churchill’s metaphorical “iron curtain” illustrated a clear demarcation between the Western and Soviet spheres of influence.  It also highlighted the near-impermeable border which separated Soviet citizens from the west. One of the hallmarks of the USSR was a system of internal and external passports. The former was a way for the government to control the internal movement of the population; changing residence for a period of “greater than one and one half months” was bureaucratically cumbersome and  purposefully reduced mobility. International passports were difficult to obtain and served as decidedly political tools to restrict the activity of so-called “untrustworthies,” particularly those who might attempt to flee the USSR for political reasons.  In a 1986 document, there were ten separate reasons for which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused exit authorization for personal travel for citizens of the USSR. These included such vague and all-encompassing reasons as “knowledge of state secrets” and “ensuring the protection of public order.” While the Soviet Union was not alone in using visas for political purposes – it was a common practice in the United States – the focus on the domestic population was uniquely Soviet.

Contemporary China also uses a system of internal and external passports. The hukou is a household registration system which governs everything from an individual’s ability to purchase a house, receive government benefits, and register a child in public school. Changing one’s hukou status, for example when moving from a rural community to a large city, is very difficult if not outright impossible. It is a tool with which the government can control the movement of people and thus the development of different urban and rural areas throughout the country. The hukou system is being augmented with an equally powerful social credit score, which can be used as a pretext to restrict the movement of citizens. In general, passports for international travel have been readily obtainable for most Chinese citizens. Yet, there have long been exceptions to this standard. Since 2012, almost no new passports have been issued to residents of the Tibetan Autonomous region. Recently, China has issued blanket recalls of passports in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Authorities have demanded that Uighurs return to China to renew expired passports; those who do have disappeared. Both policies are racist attempts to suppress ethnic minorities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and directly contravene the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which calls for unrestricted domestic and international mobility.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to further restrictions in China’s passport system, even affecting those who previously benefited from easy access. In response to the Delta variant in Summer 2021, China banned passport renewals for those engaged in non-essential travel. While the government had previously restricted the travel of government critics, last summer’s restrictions represented a new wholesale attempt to restrict external freedom of movment. While ostensibly meant to support China’s zero-COVID policy, some have argued that the policies are meant to shield China from outside influences. Extraordinarily long quarantine periods in China and Hong Kong likely have a muting effect on international travel, regardless of the underlying rationale for these policies.

Why then, does a government that is loath to repeat the mistakes of the USSR, maintain policies that echo many of those from the Soviet system, particularly when it comes to the free-movement of people? Both the USSR and PRC are authoritarian regimes that rely upon strict social controls to retain power. China, for its part, has become an increasingly assertive geopolitical power and its president – Xi Jinping – has made Chinese economic and political primacy his singular focus. As part of this, a policy of Sinicization is underway in majority-minority regions of China and there is little expectation that the CCP will yield to international pressure to allow emigration as occurred in the Soviet Union. These passport policies, then, represent an effective tool with which the CCP can continue to maintain control over an economically empowered populace, while also shielding the Chinese political-economic system from outside threats. We are indeed witnessing some of the hallmarks of the twentieth century Cold War, but not always in the most obvious manner.

Cyprus’ policies on migration and their impact on the ethnic division of the island

by

“Refugee Camps in Cyprus” by sarah.ahmadia is licensed with CC BY-NC 2.0

Almost 20,000 asylum applications are currently pending in the Republic of Cyprus (RoC). According to the Ministry of Interior, asylum seekers on the island now account for 4% of the country’s population. This has an inevitable impact on the ethnic makeup of the island and on the future of the Cyprus Problem negotiations. The RoC has thus far followed a pushbacks policy and installed a razor wire to prevent irregular migration.  “Pushbacks” refer to the practice of turning people away without giving them the opportunity to request asylum.. Under International Human Rights Law, however, states must respect the rights of all people moving across borders regardless of their migration status. As a result, the policies followed by the RoC have been in violation of the International Human Rights Law. This article explains the violations by the RoC in its attempt to control irregular migration and what implications this has on the Cyprus Problem.

In March 2020, Cypriot authorities carried out, for the first time, a number of pushbacks of boats carrying mainly Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian asylum seekers who departed from Turkish and Lebanese coastlines. Between March and September 2020, a total of 9 pushbacks were carried out according to Human Rights Watch. These incidents have drawn the attention of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, who called the expulsion of the boats illegal and requested additional investigations on how Cyprus treats asylum seekers currently on the island.  Mijatovic wrote a letter to Nicos Nouris, the Minister of Interior of the RoC, calling for a constructive dialogue with Cyprus regarding the treatment of asylum seekers on the island and the illegal pushbacks that have taken place. In the letter, Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Refugee Conventions and notes of the violations that Cyprus has conducted were cited numerous times.

Nouris responded to Mijatovic with a letter that notably did not address any of the legal references to the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention made by Mijatovic..  Nouris’ response instead forefronted only that ‘Cyprus is facing a new trend of irregular arrivals of migrants on the island’, and no justification was given for the pushback policies that followed. In a statement he gave to the Guardian, he said: ‘Cyprus simply has no more space’. In addition, the RoC has accused Turkey of deliberately seeking to create a new migration route in the eastern Mediterranean to alter the demographics of Cyprus. Turkey still does not recognise the RoC, explaining the lack of cooperation between the two countries on the migration issue.

Turkey and the European Council signed an agreement in 2016, to stop irregular migration and monitor the arrival of asylum seekers to EU states. Turkey, however, has been warning that it may send asylum seekers and refugees to the EU despite their previous agreement – a threat that it eventually followed through on in February 2020. As a result, hundreds of asylum seekers and migrants have been arriving on Greek islands and Cyprus from February and March 2020. Cyprus has received hundreds of asylum seekers as a result of Turkey’s policy, but this cannot be used by the RoC as a justification for violating International Law. As stated by UNHCR Cyprus representative, Katja Saha, any pushbacks policy constitutes a violation of International Law and, before any policy response is implemented, the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘asylum seeker’ must be clearly distinguished. Saha has also stated that Cyprus has the legal right to control its borders as long as its policies respect International Law.

The implementation of the pushbacks policy and the refusal by the government to respond to the accusations made by the European Commission for Human Rights, has led to the mobilization of Cypriot humanitarian NGOs against the government. KISA, a Migrant and Refugee Centre, has said that that the living conditions at the refugee camps in Cyprus ‘constitute blatant violations of the Refugee Law’ and that they are ‘extremely dangerous for the health of asylum seekers and public health in general’. KISA has also stated that it has brought legal proceedings against the Cypriot Ministry of Interior before the European Court of Human Rights.

Following the pushbacks’ scandal, the Ministry of Interior of the RoC installed a 11km razor wire along the ‘green line’ to stop migrants and asylum seekers from entering the RoC from North Cyprus. According to the Asylum Information Database Report on Cyprus, created by the Cyprus Refugee Council, the wire will not solve the issue of migration because most people enter the RoC directly from the sea and not from border crossings on the island. In addition, it should be noted that many of the people crossing from Northern Cyprus are not illegal migrants as the RoC argues, but people with valid asylum and refugee claims. A group of political activists, known as ‘Os Dame’ (translated as “we’ve had enough”) have cut a piece of the wire and placed it in front of the Ministry of Interior to show their opposition to the government’s new approach to migration. The decision by the RoC to place a wire along the ‘green line’ has led, once again, to the opposition of the European Commission because it violates Article 10 of the Green Line Regulation which states that any change in the policy of the RoC on the crossing of persons should be approved by the Commission before being applied. The European Commission spokesperson, Vivian Loonela, said that the Commission did not receive any notification about the construction of a new fencing from the RoC. In addition, this decision has also been criticised by Cypriot opposition parties for legitimising the division of Cyprus. According to AKEL, the main opposition party, the razor wire is entrenching the ethnic division of the island and it is implying the official acceptance of borders between the RoC and Northern Cyprus.

Despite the opposition within Cyprus and from the European Commission, the President of the RoC, Nicos Anastasiades, has defended the installation of the razor wire along the UN controlled ‘green line’. The ‘green line’ which is also known as the UN Buffer Zone, is not an external border for the EU, although it separates Cyprus into two parts. It is monitored by the UN and, since the RoC entered the EU, the Green Line Regulation was also established setting the terms under which persons and goods can cross the line from the TRNC to the RoC.  According to President Anastasiades the wire is a response to Turkey’s strategy on Cyprus, which is to alter Cyprus’ demographics through increased migratory flows. In response to the opposition that this policy has received from many Cypriots, the President said: ‘I am not aware as to how many residents have reacted but if any problems whatsoever are being caused then they will be resolved’. It is worth noting that in addition to the restriction of movement that the wire imposes to migrants and asylum seekers attempting to cross into the RoC, it also restricts access to local farmers who work land near the ‘green line’. The RoC’s spokesman, Kyriakos Koushos, has stated that this policy does not imply any ‘political or other message’ regarding the Cyprus Problem and that it has been made in accordance with Article 10 of the Green Line Regulation. Koushos insisted that the European Union and the UN were informed about the razor wire beforehand, despite the statements of the European Commission claiming the opposite.

The RoC has faced numerous criticisms over the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers on the island. Turkey’s strategy against the island cannot serve as a justification for the human rights violations that the RoC has conducted. The European Union and the UN have criticised Turkey’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, but they have nonetheless urged the RoC to stop its current policy of pushbacks. At the same time, the installation of a razor wire along the ‘green line’ has a negative impact on asylum seekers currently on Cyprus, who are unable to cross into the RoC and apply for asylum. The RoC should change its current policy on migration and asylum, stop committing human rights violations and follow the European Convention on Human Rights instead.

COVID-19, Immigration, and the Media in Britain

by

by Harry Sanders

A long history of immigration runs through Britain’s healthcare sector (Image credit: Meager/Fox Photos/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

The coronavirus pandemic’s global impact has left few unaffected. Perhaps the only silver lining of this pandemic is its highlighting of the essential work of migrants in the NHS and other healthcare services. While for years migrants have been the scapegoat of the UK’s many problems and have been the subject of immense prejudice and abuse; the positive impact of their contributions to society has finally started to come to light. Though the gushing affection and appreciation for our migrant healthcare staff are abundant on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, it is important to consider if the same shift in tone has been present in our traditional media sources.

Prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus, the British press was notoriously – and at times unashamedly – opposed to immigration in its general stance. Following the election of David Cameron’s Conservative government in 2010, the number of news articles mentioning ‘migration’ or ‘immigration’ has been growing at a steady rate year-on-year, coinciding with Conservative immigration policy which aimed to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. Throughout all of these articles written between 2006 and 2015, the most common modifier used to describe immigration was ‘mass’, followed closely by ‘net’, ‘illegal’, and ‘European’. The vast majority of these articles have been crafted with the specific aim of colouring all migration with the brush of illegal immigration, thereby characterising entire nationalities as criminals and aliens.

This is even more unjust when one considers that many of the articles emphasising illegality are covering the plight of refugees; individuals whose right to be in the UK is enshrined in both national and international law. If the last decade of British politics is anything to go by, this narrative has been highly effective in influencing the opinions of their readership.

Anti-immigrant sentiment can still be seen in articles written immediately before the outbreak of coronavirus. This article from the Daily Mail, for example, reported on the Prime Minister’s pledge to restrict EU migrants earning less than £23,000 from entering the country and to move to an ‘Australian-style points-based immigration system’. The article’s discussion of ‘slashing’  the number of low skilled workers, and its quotation of a Downing Street spokesman as having heralded the ‘return [of] democratic control of immigration to the British people’, evokes a sense of pride and achievement at the prospect of losing half of Britain’s migrant workforce. ‘Slashing’ has a rhetorical effect here; its emphatic quality is designed to trigger an emotional response in the reader by highlighting the government’s merciless approach to cutting immigration. One must presume that the critical eye has wandered far from the details of this announcement, as little consideration is given to the economic implications of restricting any workers earning less than £23,000 – a salary far in excess of the national minimum wage.

Whilst it is important to recognise the clear ideological stance embedded into the article, it is perhaps unsurprising given the political affiliation of the publication. The Daily Mail is well-known as a right-wing newspaper, and as a result, an anti-immigration narrative can be seen as them simply catering to the views of their readership. By the same token, it would be unsurprising to see The Guardian taking a more tolerant view of immigration, in light of its left-leaning readership and left-wing editorial stance. The article discussed above is very much typical of the right-wing press’ pre-pandemic approach to migration; as a result, the key question concerns the extent to which the coronavirus has reconfigured the discourse. Has the public’s positive outlook on migrant healthcare staff influenced reportage, or is the enmity still very much present?

A ‘mixed bag’ would perhaps be the aptest description. Reporting on an asylum seeker’s ‘stabbing spree’ in Glasgow in June, the Daily Mail exhibited a surprising change in tone. Citing the asylum seeker’s mental state and the negative impact of lockdown in triggering post-traumatic stress, the Mail in this instance considered the socio-economic and psychological stresses which he faced and how they may have contributed to the incident. Remarkably the most noticeable used pejorative in the article, ‘hordes’ – so often reserved especially for immigrants – was instead used to describe the emergency services which responded to the incident. Rather than mindlessly painting a black and white picture of a man with a knife, a victim, and the heroic response of the police, fair consideration is given to the causes which led to the incident and – perhaps most importantly of all – it is framed as a wholly preventable event which was allowed to happen due to a lack of sufficient resources for social services.

A further immigration story to emerge during the coronavirus pandemic was the route to British citizenship offered to British National Overseas citizens in Hong Kong due to China’s imposition of a new security law. This prompted uncharacteristic coverage from a number of typically right-wing publications; the Daily Telegraph, for example, ran the headline ‘Giving British citizenship to 300,000 Hong Kongers will boost the economy’, a reversal of the cliched trope peddled in right-wing media that immigration leads to economic demise. Published in the midst of lockdown (29 May), it may be that this more balanced approach was borne out of the wider uptick in appreciation for what migrants contribute to the UK.

Immigration also entered the discourse when eastern Europeans were flown into the UK to help save the June harvest. This triggered media coverage verging on the satirical, with the Daily Mail- a publication with an entrenched opposition to Romanian migrants – running the headline ‘Romanians to the Rescue’. Given the travel restrictions that were in place at the time, a demonstration of support for immigration of any kind- let alone that of Romanian economic migrants- is hugely noteworthy; it communicates an awareness of how indispensably important immigration is to the UK.

Has the UK media U-turned on its deep-rooted prejudice against migrants and immigration? Not quite, though it is nevertheless important to note the positive impact which our migrant healthcare workers have had on public opinion and on the press. The Daily Mail is not the only publication guilty of such reporting as has been exhibited pre-lockdown, and sure enough in recent articles, the Daily Express has persisted in the trope of reporting the scale of immigration rather than its legality. It is also key to consider that many will see headlines such as ‘Gangs using coronavirus crisis to send migrants to the UK’ and share that information irrespective of the article’s content. Whether this article highlights the perceived threat of immigrants to the UK or the plight of the trafficked migrants is a moot point to anyone who will form an opinion before opening the link and preach their opinion on the issues as unchallenged gospel.

Whilst it is encouraging to see flickers of journalistic integrity return to the British press, our media, and the way in which we consume it, must change a great deal to begin reporting on political issues such as this in an unbiased and factual manner.  Recent weeks have made it impossible to dispute the fact that migrants do in fact contribute massively to the UK, and rather than inflicting harm upon public services, are actually a key cornerstone upon which our public services stand. Going forward, it should be facts, not polarised opinions, that form the basis of immigration coverage.

Harry Sanders is a content writer for the Immigration Advice Service, an organisation of immigration solicitors.

Strife Series on British Security Post-Brexit, Part III – Security implications of post-Brexit asylum laws

by

By: Felix Manig

The United Kingdom has remained largely unaffected by the refugee crisis which has rocked the Middle East and much of Europe over the last few years. As the UK has one of Western Europe’s most stringent refugee policies in place already, the Guardian recently placed Prime Minister Theresa May ahead of Donald Trump in her attempts to undermine the global refugee system.  Now, post-Brexit negotiations and political messaging of an anti-refugee nature have the potential to further shift European refugee policy to the right and result in tangible security risks for Britain’s military and counterterrorism strategies.

‘Refugee’ System in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has always retained opt-out clauses for most EU asylum policies, including the 2016 relocation quota of 160,000 asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq and North Africa. Post-Brexit statements by Theresa May on asylum policies now point to a clear refusal to accept more refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, pledging a meagre number of 20,000 resettlements into Britain over the next four years. Instead, the PM believes that strengthening capacities and resources directly in the affected regions would help refugees more than bringing them to Europe. This February, the Government ended its commitment to the so-called ‘Dubs’ scheme, an agreement under which Britain pledged to take in vulnerable lone child refugees from camps in France, Italy and Greece. May also announced a campaign to leave the European Court of Human Rights, a separate entity from the EU, but representing a move which would discharge Britain from the special appeal rights and legal protections the Court extends to refugees.

Shifting European Refugee Policy

Perhaps the more far-reaching implications for refugees will manifest themselves in how Britain’s departure from the EU has the potential to further shift asylum and immigration legislation to the right of the political spectrum in remaining member states. A particular danger lies in the scapegoating and conflating asylum seekers and refugees, who are protected by international law under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention vis-a-vis more structural European problems such as economic marginalisation of rural areas and questions of national identity. Politicians in Europe already cater heavily to nationalistic and identity-driven sentiments to gain votes. This year, it is likely that far-right populists will gain votes in important elections such as in Germany, the Netherlands, and particularly in France. Most EU states have already passed sweeping legislation to strictly limit refugee inflows for the next few years. Anti-immigrant sentiments and hate crimes against refugees have reached all-time highs throughout the EU. A recent European-wide Chatham House study found that 55 per cent of respondents would like to see all future migration from Muslim-majority countries stopped. The prime victim of such developments is inevitably the asylum seekers who flee armed conflict and persecution.

UK Security risks for military and counterterrorism strategies

From a strict national security perspective, barring refugees from entry and catering to islamophobic sentiments in the population may create both immediate and more long-term security risks for Britain in its military operations overseas and counterterrorism efforts.  In August 2016, the BBC obtained pictures showing British special forces operating in Syria. While the UK Ministry of Defence declined to comment on the presence of personnel in the region, it should not come as a surprise to see limited ground operations taking place to complement the air campaign against Islamic State in Levant (ISIL) and other jihadist groups. However, the success of such missions often hinges on effective intelligence sharing and cooperation with local partners from host governments and their respective intelligence agencies. Extreme anti-immigration laws and the appeasement of nationalistic constituencies will lead partners to question the sincerity of their cooperation and the sustainability of their relationships with the United Kingdom.

On a more basic level, soldiers may also depend on translators and guides, who put themselves and their families in danger for assisting foreign troops. In 2015, a number of MPs warned that Britain will struggle to recruit interpreters in future conflict zones if it declines them shelter and asylum after completing their missions. Should tighter immigration and asylum legislation result in a culture of suspicion and alienation, the repercussions for the British military and the success of their operations would be considerable.

Constricting refugee flows and engaging in political messaging of an anti-refugee rhetoric nature also directly plays into the hands of groups like ISIL in two distinct ways. For one, refugees fleeing the region represent the inherent failure of the Islamic State and its envisioned society. By closing avenues and opportunities to escape violence and persecution, keeping civilians confined to the territory of ISIL will allow the group to continue to target non-combatants and extort money for arms and recruitment through taxes.

According to the UK’s counterterrorism strategy CONTEST, individuals within the United Kingdom who are at risk of radicalisation currently pose the biggest threat to national security. ISIL and other jihadist terrorist organisations directly benefit from Western anti-refugee rhetoric and legislation because it appears to reinforce their narrative of ‘Islam versus the West’. Adding fire to the propaganda messages of ISIL by contributing to the marginalisation and implicit criminalisation of mainly Muslim communities may pose a serious danger and contribute to radicalisation at home.

Accepting well-vetted refugees can have national security benefits when dealing with global terrorism as it pushes back against the idea of a cultural and religious war between the West and Islam. Incoming individuals may become part of a counter-narrative which is needed to push against transnational terrorist networks and their developing recruitment strategies.

Felix (@felix_manig) is a postgraduate in International Relations at King’s College London. He focuses on conflict resolution strategies, political violence, and human rights. He is Series Editor at StrifeBlog and advocates for human rights defenders across the world at Peace Brigades International. 

This Strife series focuses on British Security Post-Brexit and will have contributions by Dr Samir Puri; Felix Manig on the security implications of post-Brexit asylum laws; Christina on the UK-USA relationship; and Alfonc Rakaj on British defence commitments. 

Image credit: https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/09/14/19/49/barbed-wire-1670222_960_720.jpg

Crossing Borders: Technology and Migration in an Interconnected World – Conference Tickets on Sale

by

By: Johan Lammers

In times of travel bans and Brexit, as a foreign student from The Netherlands where the polls are led by a party whose official stance on immigration is literally ‘zero asylum seekers extra and no more immigrants from Islamic countries; border closed’, migration is never far from my thoughts and conversations. In this blogpost, I would like to give an idea of why migration is worthy of our growing concern in the interconnected, digitalized ‘Age of Information’. In doing so, I also set the scene for the upcoming annual Conflict, Security and Development Conference happening on the 3rd of March 2017 on this issue with the title ‘Crossing Borders: Technology and Migration in an Interconnected World’.

The UN documents over 243 million migrants around the world, or 3.3% of world population. Between 2014-2016, EuroStat recorded over 3 million first-time asylum requests to the EU; in the Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Lebanon, refugees make up 43%, 36% and 27% of the population. While the concept of a smartphone did not exist at the end of the Cold War, 37% of the world population is expected to own one in 2020; a 2015 survey found that close to 86% of the Syrian youth in a refugee camp in Jordan did. Unsurprisingly, both strongly upward trends have an influence on each other. Migrant and host communities are increasingly interconnected through constant and abundant live information. This increasingly blurs the lines that divide consumers and producers of generated news and public opinion about ongoing conflicts. The emergence of physical and virtual information and communication networks have an endogenous reinforcing effect and facilitate an unprecedented flow of people and ideas.

However, these flows are far from uncontrollable as numerous stakeholders with varying if not directly opposing interests seek to manage, coordinate or exploit this modern phenomenon of (forced) migration in an interconnected world. Whereas the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees seeks to manage global databases in camps based on biometric registrations, border police are using drones for monitoring. Separated families can remain in touch or even reunite across vast distances. Expectation management for aspiring migrants, educational information and preparing for integration greatly benefit from a wealth of online data, programs and apps. Meanwhile, migrants risk entire livelihoods based on the best practices, rumours and accounts of strangers via Facebook groups.

In addition to these parallel mechanisms that make up the interaction between technology and migration, single mechanisms do not have a uniformly beneficial or harmful effect. Does technology hamper the capacity of human traffickers through increased transparency in their practices, or does it provide them with unchecked informal advertising platforms and viral mouth-to-mouth networks? How does the constant feed of real-time available media material influence both mutual perceptions of migrant and host communities and the political climates that result for their political representatives?

Hence, a proper understanding of migration and technology cannot come from merely a single perspective but requires multiple lenses. Yet neither is it merely a ‘problem’ that should be ‘solved’, without also discussing the opportunities to be seized.

During the Conflict, Security and Development Conference on the 3rd of March 2017, we will address several of these issues by bringing together academics, NGOs, policymakers, journalists, entrepreneurs and migrants for discussion. Through this forum, we seek to compare and contrast how these combined perspectives provide an idea of what the current challenges and opportunities are, and how these integrated trends are likely to develop in the years to come.

In our first panel, we bring together migrants-turned-activists and entrepreneurs to identify how modern technologies have a personal impact on a migrant’s experiences, but also how businesses emerge to employ migrants and cater towards particular needs of these emerging target audiences. Our second panel discusses how NGOs and other migration managers seek to employ technologies to coordinate these flows of peoples. Our third panel considers what policy implications modern, digitalized migrants might have, and how technologies can be instrumentalized towards advancing these aims.

More information on how to buy tickets, our speakers’ profiles, and the schedule for the day can be found on our website. Payment: The conference welcomes all audiences, though students from the University of London can attend at a reduced fee.  

Notes:

Beheshti-Kashi, Samaneh, Makki, Baharak (2013), ‘Social Media News: Motivation, Purpose and Usage’, International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.97-105

The author is pursuing his MA in Conflict, Security and Development at King’s College London. This piece was submitted by the 2017 Conflict, Security and Development Conference organisers as an advertisement for the annual student-led CSD Conference. You can buy tickets here.

Image source: http://www.wnyc.org/story/a-harrowing-journey-into-europe-aided-by-apps-and-internet-access/