Closed Borders: Restrictive Policies and Their Effects on Refugees

The central instrument for the international protection of refugees is the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, commonly known as the Geneva Convention. Created in the post-war period to address the displacement crisis in Europe, this Convention defines the term "refugee" as any person who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country."

The Convention establishes a series of minimum rights for refugees, including the right not to be expelled (except under certain very limited circumstances), access to justice, education, employment, and public assistance. However, its initial temporal and geographical scope was limited to events that occurred before 1951 in Europe.

To overcome these restrictions, the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted. This Protocol removed geographical and temporal limitations, making the 1951 Convention universally applicable to all persons meeting the refugee definition, regardless of when or where the grounds for their persecution arose. Together, the Convention and its Protocol form the cornerstone of international refugee law, binding States Parties to its principles and obligations.

Of all the principles enshrined in the Geneva Convention, the principle of non-refoulement is undoubtedly the most fundamental and the "cardinal principle" of refugee law. Established in Article 33(1) of the Convention, it prohibits States Parties from expelling or returning a refugee in any way to the borders of territories where their life or freedom would be endangered for the aforementioned reasons (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion).

This principle is not absolute except in exceptional cases, such as when there are substantial grounds for considering a refugee to be a danger to the security of the country of asylum or when they have been convicted of a particularly serious crime. However, even in these cases, the application of the exception is very restrictive and must be carefully evaluated. Non-refoulement has become established as a norm of customary international law, meaning it is binding even on States that are not parties to the Convention or the Protocol, due to its widespread recognition as a fundamental obligation of States. It is a principle that prevails over national migration policies and is essential to ensuring the safety and protection of those fleeing persecution.

In addition to the Geneva Convention, several other international and regional human rights instruments strengthen refugee protection, providing additional layers of safeguards and expanding the scope of rights.

At the international level, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), although non-binding, proclaims the right of everyone to seek and enjoy asylum in any country from persecution (Article 14). The International Covenants on Human Rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), both of 1966, establish fundamental rights applicable to all persons under the jurisdiction of a State, including refugees, such as the right to life, freedom from torture, liberty and security of person, and adequate living conditions. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) also reinforces the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the return of any person to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture.

At the regional level, there are significant legal frameworks:

Africa: The 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa expands the definition of refugee to include persons fleeing external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or events seriously disturbing public order.

Latin America: The 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees is a non-binding but influential instrument that also expands the definition of refugee to include persons fleeing generalized violence, external aggression, internal conflict, massive violations of human rights, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order.

Europe: The European Convention on Human Rights (1950), while not directly focused on refugees, has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights to prohibit expulsion or extradition when there is a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (Article 3).

These instruments complement and strengthen the refugee protection framework, ensuring that their human rights are respected, even when their countries of origin are unable or unwilling to protect them.

The implementation and oversight of the international legal framework for refugee protection falls largely upon specialized organizations. The most important of these is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

UNHCR, established in 1950 by the UN General Assembly, has the primary mandate to direct and coordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve their problems worldwide. Its functions include:

• Protection: Ensuring that States respect international refugee law, monitoring the implementation of the 1951 Convention, and upholding refugee rights, including the principle of non-refoulement.
• Assistance: Providing humanitarian aid, shelter, food, medical care, and other essential services to refugees and displaced persons.

Search for Durable Solutions: Working to find long-term solutions for refugees, including voluntary return to their country of origin in conditions of safety and dignity, local integration in the country of asylum, or resettlement in a third country.

Advocacy and Advice: Advising governments on asylum legislation and policies, promoting the ratification of international instruments, and raising awareness about the causes and consequences of forced displacement.

In addition to UNHCR, other international organizations play crucial roles:

International Organization for Migration (IOM): While not a refugee agency per se, IOM works closely with UNHCR and governments to manage migration in an orderly and humane manner, which often includes assisting in refugee resettlement or voluntary repatriation.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Promotes and protects all human rights for all people, including refugees, and denounces human rights violations that may lead to displacement or affect displaced persons.

International Red Cross and Red Crescent: They provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance in conflict and crisis zones, often reaching vulnerable populations, including refugees, in hard-to-reach places.

UNICEF, WFP, WHO: These UN agencies, among others, provide targeted assistance in their respective areas (children, food, health) to refugee populations.

Collaboration between these organizations is essential to building a comprehensive and effective protection system that responds to the complex needs of refugees worldwide.

One of the most visible and symbolic manifestations of closed border policies is the construction of physical barriers. These structures, ranging from simple fences to complex systems of walls and fortifications, are designed to physically impede or hinder border crossings. Prominent examples include the wall on the US-Mexico border, the fences on the Hungarian and Croatian borders with Serbia to contain migratory flows in Europe, or the barriers built by Spain in Ceuta and Melilla.

The implementation of these barriers often involves the use of high-tech equipment, such as night vision cameras, motion sensors, and drones. Although they are argued to control the flow of people and prevent irregular entry, their main effect is to divert refugees toward more dangerous and remote routes, forcing them to resort to traffickers and exponentially increasing the risks of accidents, injuries, and deaths. Far from halting movement, these barriers simply make it more deadly and less visible.

Entry restrictions constitute a set of administrative and legal measures that limit people's ability to enter a territory regularly and seek asylum. Visa requirements are one of the most common tools; many countries require asylum seekers to obtain a visa before traveling, which is impossible for most of those unexpectedly fleeing persecution. Since refugees are often unable to obtain passports or documentation from their countries of origin, this requirement virtually closes the door to legal entry.

Furthermore, border controls have been significantly intensified. This includes military or police presence at points of entry, the use of racial or ethnic profiling to identify potential asylum seekers, and the establishment of transit zones at airports and ports where individuals may be detained and denied access without a proper assessment of their asylum claims. Denial of access to a territory or interception on the high seas without an individual assessment of protection needs contravenes the principle of non-refoulement and hinders access to the asylum procedure.

Outsourcing of migration controls involves destination countries delegating the responsibility of stemming migration flows to third countries, often those that are neighboring or located on transit routes. This is achieved through bilateral or multilateral agreements in which receiving countries offer economic or political incentives in exchange for transit countries detaining migrants and refugees at their borders or processing them on their territory.

Notable examples include the European Union's agreement with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees to Europe, or Australia's agreements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea to process asylum seekers in offshore centers. While these agreements can reduce the arrival of people at the borders of destination countries, they often result in prolonged detention and precarious conditions for asylum seekers, with limited access to protection and basic rights. Externalization can expose refugees to greater risks of abuse and human rights violations in countries that often lack the capacity or will to ensure their adequate protection.

The detention of asylum seekers, often in closed centers and without access to due process, has become common practice in many countries. Unlike criminal detention, which is based on the commission of a crime, immigration detention is an administrative measure that deprives the liberty of individuals who have not committed a crime but are seeking protection. Conditions in these centers can be deplorable, with limited access to legal assistance, medical care, and psychological support, which has a serious impact on the mental health of those detained.

The criminalization of asylum seekers goes beyond detention. In some contexts, national laws have been amended to consider irregular border crossing a criminal offense, rather than an administrative infraction. This can lead to criminal charges and prison sentences for people who, under international law, have the right to seek asylum. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward criminalizing humanitarian assistance, targeting individuals and organizations that provide aid to migrants and refugees, undermining civil society efforts and exacerbating the vulnerability of displaced people.

Restrictive policies also manifest themselves in limitations on the right to asylum through the modification of application procedures. Accelerated asylum procedures are designed to process applications quickly, often with very short deadlines for the submission of evidence or appeals. While they may appear efficient, these procedures often do not allow for an adequate assessment of complex cases or the opportunity for applicants to fully present their story, increasing the risk of erroneous denials and returns to dangerous situations.

Another mechanism is safe country lists. Countries of origin are designated as "safe" if it is presumed that there is no persecution or risk of serious harm to the majority of their nationals. If an asylum seeker comes from a country on this list, their application may be processed under an expedited procedure or even denied outright, unless they can demonstrate exceptional circumstances that override the presumption of safety. The objection to these lists is that the security situation can vary significantly within a country or for certain groups of people, and blanket categorization can ignore individual protection needs, undermining the principle of individual assessment of asylum claims.

Border militarization involves the deployment of armed forces or the provision of military capabilities (equipment, technology, tactics) to border control agencies. This strategy transforms borders from transit points into security zones, where the logic of national defense prevails over humanitarian protection. Instead of law-based and assistance-based approaches, deterrent and coercive methods are adopted.

Militarization can include the use of aerial surveillance with drones, armed patrols, thermal imaging equipment, and radar systems. The objective is to detect, intercept, and repel migrants before they can enter the territory or request asylum. However, this approach increases violence at the borders, can lead to human rights abuses by personnel untrained in asylum matters, and creates an environment of fear that pushes asylum seekers to seek even more clandestine and dangerous routes. The rhetoric of a "war" on immigration dehumanizes refugees and hinders the implementation of human rights-based policies.

When legal and safe avenues to seek asylum are closed, refugees are forced to resort to dangerous and irregular routes to reach safety. This translates into sea crossings in precarious boats, crossing inhospitable deserts, or traveling through mountainous areas with extreme weather conditions. The absence of safe options turns every step into a gamble against death.

The direct result is a tragic increase in mortality. Thousands of people lose their lives each year trying to cross the Mediterranean, the Sahara Desert, or heavily guarded land borders. These deaths are not isolated accidents, but the predictable consequence of policies that prioritize control over human life. Militarized borders and intensive surveillance do not eliminate the flows; rather, they divert them toward even more lethal paths, far from public view and the possibility of rescue.

Refugees' desperation to find safety, combined with the lack of legal avenues, creates fertile ground for the proliferation of human smuggling and trafficking networks. Traffickers exploit the vulnerability of those fleeing, charging exorbitant sums for extremely dangerous and often deceptive journeys. These networks operate clandestinely, with no regard for people's safety or well-being.

The distinction between smuggling and trafficking is crucial: human smuggling involves the facilitation of irregular border crossings in exchange for financial gain, while human trafficking is a form of modern slavery that involves exploitation for labor, sexual, or other purposes through coercion, deception, or kidnapping. Restrictive policies, by driving refugees underground, dramatically increase their susceptibility to trafficking, as they are at the mercy of individuals and criminal groups who manipulate and exploit them.

Once refugees are forced onto irregular routes or to live in the shadows in transit or destination countries, their vulnerability to exploitation and abuse skyrockets. Without legal status, access to justice, or support networks, they are easy prey for unscrupulous individuals and organizations.

This exploitation can manifest itself in various forms: labor, forcing them to work in slave-like conditions, without pay, or in dangerous environments; sexual exploitation, with women and children particularly exposed to forced prostitution or gender-based violence; and extortion, where they are subjected to blackmail and threats to obtain money or favors. Unaccompanied children are especially susceptible to these forms of abuse, as they lack family protection and the ability to navigate complex systems. The lack of secure legal status prevents them from reporting these abuses for fear of deportation, perpetuating a cycle of impunity for exploiters.

The refugee journey, exacerbated by restrictive policies, leaves a profound mark on their mental and physical health. Before fleeing, many have already experienced traumas such as war, persecution, or violence. Dangerous routes, the uncertainty of the journey, detention, family separation, and the constant threat of deportation add layers of stress and trauma.

On the mental health level, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and, in extreme cases, suicide are common. The feeling of hopelessness, loss of control over their lives, and the absence of a clear future contribute to a significant deterioration in psychological well-being. Regarding physical health, lack of access to adequate medical care during the journey, unsanitary conditions in camps or detention centers, malnutrition, and exposure to infectious diseases are recurring problems. Injuries sustained during escape or at the hands of traffickers are also common.

Restrictive policies often result in family separation, breaking the fundamental support network for refugees. Visa restrictions, strict border controls, and long and complex family reunification processes make it difficult or impossible for families fleeing together to remain together or to reunite once dispersed.

This forced separation has devastating consequences, especially for children, who are left in situations of extreme vulnerability. Social disintegration goes beyond the nuclear family; the inability to build communities in asylum countries, isolation, and lack of interaction with the host society can lead to feelings of loneliness, uprooting, and exclusion. The loss of social and cultural support networks, essential for resilience, further exacerbates the already difficult situation of refugees.

One of the cruelest consequences of restrictive policies is limited or no access to basic, universal and fundamental rights. In many countries, asylum seekers or refugees with irregular status are excluded from essential public services.

Education: Refugee children and youth often cannot access formal schooling due to legal barriers, lack of documentation, or discrimination. This not only robs them of their future but perpetuates a cycle of poverty and exclusion.

Health: Access to healthcare is precarious or nonexistent for many. Fear of deportation, lack of insurance, language barriers, or discrimination by medical personnel prevent them from receiving essential treatment, even in emergencies.

Housing: Housing is a constant challenge. Many refugees live in overcrowded conditions in camps, informal settlements, or on the streets, exposed to the elements and insecurity. The lack of legal status prevents them from accessing rental contracts or social housing programs.

Employment: Work restrictions are widespread. Refugees are often not legally permitted to work, forcing them into the informal economy, where they are exploited and lack labor or social protection.

This deprivation of basic rights not only violates human dignity but also hinders any possibility of integration and self-sufficiency.

Restrictive policies, often accompanied by political and media discourse that portrays refugees as a threat (to security, the economy, or culture), contribute to their stigmatization and discrimination. They are dehumanized, associated with criminality or social burdens, and their individuality and stories are denied.

This stigmatization translates into discrimination in various areas: from difficulty finding employment or housing to hostile treatment in public services or social exclusion by the host community. Racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia intensify, creating an atmosphere of hostility and mistrust. This atmosphere of rejection profoundly affects refugees' self-esteem and sense of belonging, making them feel unwanted and marginalized.

Legal and administrative uncertainty is a constant in the lives of many asylum seekers and refugees. Asylum processes can be extremely long, complex, and opaque, leaving people in legal limbo for years, not knowing whether their application will be approved, denied, or deported.

This uncertainty is compounded by frequent changes in asylum laws and policies, which generate confusion and despair. Lack of access to clear information, quality legal advice, and adequate translations is a significant obstacle. Living with the constant threat of deportation, without being able to plan for the future, generates chronic stress and a deep sense of insecurity. This legal limbo impedes integration, access to services, and the ability to rebuild a dignified life, turning the search for refuge into an endless odyssey of bureaucracy and anxiety.

For countries of origin from which refugees are forced to flee, closed border policies have perverse effects. The phenomenon of "brain drain" is one of the most significant consequences. Many of those who manage to escape are individuals with education, skills, or work experience, whose departure represents an irrecoverable loss of human capital for their nations. This brain drain weakens local economies, reduces resilience, and hinders long-term development, as the country loses those who could contribute to its reconstruction and progress.

Furthermore, the inability of refugees to return home safely and voluntarily, due to persistent persecution or conflict, exacerbates social instability. Refugee diasporas, unable to influence internal changes or contribute to an end to violence, can generate frustration and resentment. Communities become fragmented, and the loss of young, productive populations can perpetuate cycles of poverty and despair, further fueling the underlying causes of displacement.

Transit countries, which often lack the resources and infrastructure to handle large influxes of people, bear the brunt of the immediate pressures of destination countries' closed borders. Prevented from continuing their journey, refugees and migrants accumulate in these nations, placing enormous pressure on local resources. This manifests itself in:

Overwhelmed health systems: Medical services are overwhelmed by the demand for care, especially for trauma, chronic illnesses, and mental health.

Housing shortages: The influx of people exceeds housing capacity, leading to the creation of makeshift camps or informal settlements with unsanitary conditions.

Overburdened basic services: Access to clean water, sanitation, and education becomes critical, affecting both the local population and refugees.

This pressure, often exacerbated by a lack of adequate international support, can lead to social tensions between local communities and refugee populations. Competition for scarce resources and the perception of an unmanageable burden can fuel xenophobia and resentment, leading to conflict and internal destabilization.

Paradoxically, restrictive policies also create significant challenges for destination countries seeking to limit refugee inflows. One of the most notable is labor shortages. Many advanced economies face an aging population and declining birth rates, resulting in a shrinking workforce. By closing their borders to refugees, who are often young and willing to accept jobs their citizens do not want, these countries lose a potential source of workers and contributors to their social security systems.

Furthermore, ignoring refugees' potential to contribute to society creates long-term demographic challenges. The lack of regulated and planned migration prevents the rejuvenation of the workforce and the maintenance of dependency ratios. In the long term, this can jeopardize the sustainability of pension, health, and welfare systems, undermining economic growth and social vitality.

Closed border policies pose an existential threat to the international refugee protection system that has been meticulously built since the post-war period. By circumventing or ignoring the obligations set forth in the 1951 Geneva Convention and other human rights instruments, States undermine the principles of solidarity and shared responsibility.

The erosion of the principle of non-refoulement, whether through summary returns, arbitrary detention, or the externalization of controls, undermines the very essence of protection. When countries systematically deny access to asylum or criminalize seeking refuge, they send a dangerous message: that international obligations can be ignored in the name of national sovereignty. This creates a domino effect, where other States may feel justified in following the same path, leading to a fragmentation of the system and leaving millions of people without a safe place to seek refuge. International refugee law is weakened, and the credibility of the global institutions that uphold it is compromised.

Restrictive policies often go hand in hand with political rhetoric that stigmatizes refugees and migrants, portraying them as a threat. This narrative fuels the rise of xenophobia and nationalism. Narratives that promote the idea of "us" versus "them" blame "outsiders" for economic and social problems, diverting attention from structural causes.

Xenophobia manifests itself in discrimination, hate speech, and, in the most extreme cases, violence against refugee and immigrant communities. Nationalism, in its most exclusionary form, promotes a closed national identity that rejects diversity and plurality. This hostile environment not only affects newcomers but also erodes social cohesion within countries, polarizing societies and hindering dialogue and peaceful coexistence.

Beyond the practical consequences, closed border policies pose profound ethical and moral implications. Denying the right to seek asylum to people fleeing persecution and imminent danger challenges fundamental human principles such as compassion, solidarity, and the inherent dignity of every person.

When states prioritize border control over human life, questions arise about the morality of their actions. What is the ethical cost of allowing people to die at sea or in the desert, or to be exploited by traffickers, when alternatives exist for their protection? The criminalization of humanitarian assistance and the dehumanization of refugees erode the ethical values that supposedly underpin civilized societies. These policies force individuals to confront moral dilemmas about their own complicity or inaction, and challenge the international community to reflect on its collective responsibility to protect the most vulnerable.

One of the most crucial solutions is the creation and expansion of legal and safe pathways for refugees to access protection without having to resort to dangerous routes. This not only saves lives but also weakens human smuggling and trafficking networks. These pathways include:

Family Reunification: Facilitating the process for refugees to reunite with their families in countries where they are already safe. This is a fundamental human right and an effective path to integration.

Humanitarian visas: Grant entry visas to people in situations of extreme vulnerability or in need of urgent protection, allowing them to travel safely and seek asylum in the destination country.

Resettlement programs: Expand resettlement quotas, which are processes coordinated by UNHCR and States to transfer refugees from countries of first asylum (often neighboring countries with limited resources) to third countries that have agreed to offer them permanent protection. Resettlement is a vital tool for sharing responsibilities and protecting the most vulnerable refugees.

Private sponsorship: Promote programs where groups of citizens, communities, or private organizations assume responsibility for supporting the arrival and initial settlement of refugees, which can increase reception capacity and promote integration.

By offering legal alternatives, the need for irregular journeys is reduced, the asylum-seeking process is dignified, and a commitment to humanitarian principles is demonstrated.

The refugee crisis is a global challenge that no country can solve alone. Therefore, strengthening international cooperation and equitable responsibility-sharing are essential. This entails:

Implementation of the Global Compact on Refugees: Support and implement the principles and objectives of the Global Compact, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2018, which seeks to promote more equitable and predictable burden- and responsibility-sharing.

Adequate funding: Increase funding for UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies operating in countries of origin and first asylum, where the vast majority of refugees are located.

Dialogue and diplomacy: Promote dialogue and collaboration between countries of origin, transit, and destination to address the root causes of displacement, manage flows in an orderly manner, and ensure respect for refugee rights.

Solidarity Agreements: Establish regional or international solidarity mechanisms that allow for a fairer distribution of asylum seekers among countries, alleviating pressure on states that bear a disproportionate burden.

A collective and coordinated response is essential to ensure effective and sustainable protection for refugees.

Addressing the root causes of forced displacement and improving conditions in countries hosting large numbers of refugees is crucial to a long-term strategy. This requires significant investment in long-term solutions in countries of origin and transit:

Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction: Promote economic and social development, strengthen governance, and reduce poverty in countries of origin to address the socioeconomic causes driving forced migration.

Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding: Increase diplomatic and mediation efforts to resolve armed conflicts and promote peace and stability, enabling the voluntary and safe return of refugees to their homes.

Support for Countries of First Asylum: Invest in infrastructure, education, health, and livelihood opportunities in the transit and first asylum countries that host the majority of refugees. This enables them to offer decent living conditions and reduces the need for refugees to seek protection elsewhere.

Climate Change Resilience: Support countries vulnerable to climate change in adaptation and mitigation, reducing forced displacement related to natural disasters.

By investing in these areas, the necessary conditions can be created so that people are not forced to flee and so that refugees can live with dignity wherever they are.

When refugees arrive in a host country, promoting their integration and inclusion is vital not only for their well-being, but also for the benefit of the host society. This involves:

Access to the labor market: Removing legal and administrative barriers to refugees' ability to work and contribute to the local economy. This includes the recognition of qualifications and support for job searches.

Access to education: Guaranteeing access to education for refugee children and youth, from primary school to higher education, and offering language courses and cultural adaptation programs.

Access to health services and housing: Ensuring that refugees have access to public health systems and decent and affordable housing options.

Civic and social participation: Encouraging refugees' participation in the civic and cultural life of their new communities, promoting mutual understanding and combating discrimination.

Psychosocial support programs: Offer support to address trauma and adaptation challenges, helping refugees rebuild their social and emotional lives.

Successful integration benefits society as a whole, providing diversity, new perspectives, and a valuable workforce.

To counter xenophobic rhetoric and prejudice, awareness raising and public education are powerful tools. This involves:

Positive Narratives: Promoting success stories and the positive contributions of refugees to host societies to change negative perceptions and foster empathy.

Fact-Based Information: Combating misinformation and myths about refugees and migration by providing accurate data and rigorous analysis of the situation.

Human Rights Education: Incorporating education on refugee rights and international humanitarian law into school curricula and vocational training.

Awareness Campaigns: Launching public campaigns that challenge stereotypes and foster cultural understanding and solidarity.

Role of the Media: Promoting responsible and ethical media coverage of refugee issues, avoiding sensationalization and dehumanization.

An informed and empathetic society is more likely to accept and support inclusive and humane policies.

Civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an irreplaceable role in responding to the refugee crisis and promoting alternatives to restrictive policies. Their contribution is multifaceted:

Service provision: Offering humanitarian assistance, legal counseling, psychosocial support, education, and integration services to refugees on the ground, often filling gaps left by the state.

Advocacy and monitoring: Acting as advocates for refugee rights, monitoring government policies, denouncing human rights violations, and advocating for changes in law and practice.

Awareness-raising and mobilizing: Mobilizing public opinion, organizing peaceful protests, generating awareness-raising campaigns, and pressuring governments to adopt more humane approaches.

Innovation and Local Solutions: Develop and test innovative solutions at the local level, demonstrating the viability of alternative and collaborative approaches.

Knowledge Generation: Conduct research, reports, and analyses that shed light on the realities of refugees and the consequences of current policies, informing public debate and political decisions.

Civil society activism and resilience are critical to maintaining pressure on governments and ensuring that refugee rights and dignity remain at the center of the global agenda.

We have found that, far from solving migration problems, restrictive policies push refugees toward more dangerous routes, resulting in an alarming increase in mortality and the proliferation of human smuggling and trafficking networks. Refugees' intrinsic vulnerability is further exploited, exposing them to exploitation, abuse, and severe impacts on their mental and physical health. Family separation becomes a painful reality, and limited access to basic rights such as education, healthcare, and housing perpetuates a cycle of marginalization. Furthermore, these policies foster stigmatization and discrimination, and plunge refugees into chronic legal and administrative uncertainty.

The repercussions of these measures extend beyond individuals. For countries of origin, they imply a brain drain and the perpetuation of instability. Transit countries are overwhelmed, facing enormous pressure on their resources and the emergence of social tensions. Paradoxically, destination countries also suffer the consequences, facing potential labor shortages and demographic challenges. Crucially, these policies undermine and weaken the international refugee protection system, fueling xenophobia and nationalism, and raising serious ethical and moral implications for the global community.

Despite the clear international legal framework and the evident negative consequences of restrictive policies, significant challenges remain. The lack of political will to assume shared responsibility, the instrumentalization of refugees for political purposes, and a reluctance to invest in long-term solutions are major obstacles. The growing gap between protection needs and States' response capacity threatens the credibility of the global humanitarian system.

Going forward, it is imperative to adopt a paradigm shift toward more humane, effective, and rights-based approaches. This requires:

• Prioritizing Legal and Safe Pathways: Drastically expanding family reunification, humanitarian visa, and resettlement programs, ensuring that refugees do not have to risk their lives.
• Strengthening Global Cooperation: Reinforcing the Global Compact on Refugees and ensuring adequate funding for UNHCR and humanitarian organizations, promoting equitable responsibility-sharing.
• Investing in Root Causes and Countries of First Asylum: Addressing the root causes of displacement through sustainable development, conflict resolution, and robust support for countries of transit and first asylum.
• Promoting Integration and Inclusion: Removing barriers to access to employment, education, healthcare, and housing for refugees in host countries, recognizing their potential contribution.
• Combating Disinformation: Promoting awareness and public education to counter xenophobia, foster empathy, and highlight positive refugee narratives.

• Empowering Civil Society: Recognize and support the vital role of civil society and NGOs in providing services, advocating for rights, and promoting solutions.

Inaction or the continuation of restrictive policies is not only morally indefensible, but also unsustainable in the long term. The refugee crisis is not a problem of one region or continent, but a global challenge that demands concerted global action. We call on world leaders, policymakers, and society as a whole to recognize the inherent humanity of every person seeking refuge.

It is time to shift from an approach of containment and exclusion to one of protection, solidarity, and durable solutions. Only through cooperation, respect for human rights, and a commitment to humanitarian principles can we build a world where security is not achieved at the expense of human dignity, and where all people, including refugees, can live in peace and prosperity.