A



Political Responses of Germany and Poland during the 2015-2019 Syrian Refugee CrisisA Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements of the Renée Crown University Honors Program atSyracuse UniversityCiera MooreCandidate for Bachelor Arts in International Relations Degreeand Renee Crown University Honors Spring 2020Honors Thesis in International RelationsThesis Advisor: _______________________ Seth Jolly, Associate Professor of Political ScienceThesis Reader: _______________________ Francine D’Amico, Professor of International RelationsHonors Director: _______________________ Dr. Danielle Smith, DirectorAbstract In 2015, Europe experienced a refugee crisis where hundreds of thousands of people were fleeing war-torn Syria and entering Europe through Italy and Greece. These refugees were experiencing persecution and bloodshed. Germany took the lead in this crisis by immediately accepting refugees. In response to Germany’s actions the European Union then asked other countries to grant access to asylum seekers. The resulting responses to this crisis varied and Germany and Poland can represent the different views and actions taken by European countries. Germany was the catalyst for other countries to join because they responded positively and immediately, accepting over one million people within the first two years. Only recently has its citizens begun to disagree with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door policy. Poland represents a different response because they decided to take a hard stance against the crisis by completely denying refugees entry into their country. Germany and Poland are led by right-wing governments, which tend to be more conservative and preach anti-immigration rhetoric, but their responses differ significantly. Germany was more accepting of refugees despite being right-wing. Through data looking at public opinion toward refugees in each country as well as looking at the political responses, it can be determined why Germany and Poland responded the way they did. The decisions of the two countries listed above have been felt all throughout the EU and without a change in nationalist opinions the bias towards refugees will only get stronger. Executive SummaryMy thesis project, entitled “Political Responses of Germany and Poland during the 2015-2019 Syrian Refugee Crisis”, is an International Relations project that focuses on public and political responses in Germany in Poland during the Syrian refugee crisis and why each country responded the way they did. In early 2011 Syria experience the beginnings of what would eventually turn into a violent civil war. The government, especially President Bashar al-Assad, was not supported by the majority of Syrian citizens. This came to a breaking point when soldiers in the Syrian military tortured and questioned children. The public was outraged and protested right in front of the main government building. While peaceful protests had been occurring for a while, this one turned violent and four people died. From that day on the country became divided between those who wanted al-Assad in power and those who did not (the resistance). A third party also came into public view called the Islamic State that agreed with the views of the resistance but were decidedly more violent and not against bloodshed. After a few years the Islamic State gained power and territory within Syria but were practically destroyed once the United States became involved. To this day there is still an ongoing civil war and it seems like there is no break in sight. A major result of the Syrian civil war was the displacement of hundreds of thousands of its citizens. These people would become known as refugees because they were fleeing their home country from persecution to seek a place that was safer. The surrounding countries of Syria (Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq) took in the majority of refugees but once the numbers became too much to handle people began seeing help elsewhere. This is when in 2015, at the height of the Syrian refugee crisis, that Syrians began crossing the Mediterranean Sea and entering Europe through Greece and Italy. The problem with this journey, and other ways into Europe that people found, were the danger and risks that were taken to get to safety. Many people died fleeing Syria. From here on out the Syrian refugee crisis also became a humanitarian crisis.Greece and Italy became quickly overwhelmed with the number of refugees seeking asylum that they turned to other European countries for help. This is when Germany stepped in to take on responsibility and accept as many refugees as possible into the country. Chancellor Angela Merkel made this decision and received a lot of mixed criticism. Within the first year Germany accepted just under one million refugees. These refugees would also be referred to as asylum seekers because they would have to apply for asylum in any European country. Once their application was accepted then they could legally enter the country to work and live. The problem with this process is that it is a long and difficult one. Sometimes a refugee would wait months in a camp on the border of a country and then hear they were denied. They would then be allowed to go to another country where they could try again.Not every European country was as accepting of refugees as Germany. One example of this is Poland because they hardly accepted anyone. Like Hungary, Poland maintained an anti-immigration stance during the Syrian refugee crisis. Both Germany and Poland are led by right-wing governments, but Poland’s is much more conservative. The reigning Law and Justice party in Poland did not support religions other than Roman Catholic and strongly believed in preserving their ethnicity in a “pure Poland”. While they did not take as extreme measures as Hungary, like building a wall, they did act harshly. Fortunately, there were positive responses once Germany began accepting refugees because of the example they set. The European Union took steps after Germany did. They made a pact with Turkey in 2016 that would come to be known as the EU-Turkey deal. The deal entailed that the EU had the power to send refugees who entered Europe illegally back to Turkey and in return they would take a refugee legally from Turkey. This deal helped quell the influx of refugees entering Greece and Italy as well as take some of the burden off Turkey. Another law that went into place was that if an asylum seeker could prove they were from Syria they were granted automatic refugee status. This exception was made during this time to protect Syrians but if someone proved to be from a different country, they were sent back for lying on their application. After a few years the German citizens became upset with Merkel and her open-door policy. They wanted stricter restrictions and her party, the Christian Democratic Union, even threatened to remove her from office. The change in attitudes was not a new concept because this is exactly what Austria did. By adding restrictions to refugee intake and making the process more thorough, the flow decreased and less and less people were receiving asylum or seeking refugee status. This did not mean that the civil war was ending because people are still fleeing Syria to this day and there is still civil unrest.The reason that this research is important is because without analyzing public opinion and political trends it is impossible to understand why European countries reacted the way they did to the Syrian refugee crisis. Syria is experiencing one of the largest humanitarian crises that the world has seen in a while so it would be logical that other countries would want to provide any aid possible. Unfortunately, this was not the case and most countries wanted to protect their own citizens from the refugees, mainly because of prejudices. By looking at the European response to the Syrian refugee crisis from the perspective of Germany and Poland, it will become clear why there were two very different responses that resulted.Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc38531064 \h 2Executive Summary PAGEREF _Toc38531065 \h 2Table of Contents………………….………………………………………………………………6The Syrian Refugee Crisis PAGEREF _Toc38531066 \h 7The Past to Present PAGEREF _Toc38531067 \h 10Theories for Refugee Opinions PAGEREF _Toc38531068 \h 12Case Study: Germany PAGEREF _Toc38531069 \h 13Case Study: Poland PAGEREF _Toc38531070 \h 18Analysis PAGEREF _Toc38531071 \h 23Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc38531072 \h 25Works Cited and Consulted PAGEREF _Toc38531073 \h 28 The Syrian Refugee CrisisTensions between the Syrian government and its people began to rise shortly before 2011. The people were asking for more political freedom and did not agree with the President Bashar al-Assad (BBC, 2019). Citizens conducted peaceful protests for a while, but after the arrest and torture of children by authorities they became more vocal in their protests. The government decided to take drastic measures in response and opened fire on a crowd of civilians in March 2011 (Britannica, 2020). Innocent people died and the citizens were enraged by this act of cruelty. The cumulation of these events led the country to launch into an all-out civil war. The fighting was between al-Assad’s soldiers, rebel fighters, and the Islamic State (IS). The rebel fighters asked for al-Assad to step down from office, but he refused. Syrians were forced to fight after the government declared war. “The Syrian government's key supporters are Russia and Iran, while the US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia backed the rebels” (BBC, 2019). With the help of bordering countries, people were able to flee in order to find safety, henceforth becoming refugees. According to the official definition by the United Nations (UN), a refugee is “someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence” (UNHCR). Syrians fled for fear of their safety and wellbeing which sparked governments and organizations around the world to provide aid in any way possible.The countries that border Syria are Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. They took the majority of refugees once the civil war began. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 3RP Regional Strategic Overview 2018-2019 report “In Lebanon, one in five people is a refugee, while one in 15 is a refugee in Jordan. Meanwhile, Turkey continues to host the largest number of refugees in the world” (2017). There are 5.3 million registered Syrian refugees. The surrounding countries began to suggest that the refugees go elsewhere once the influx became too large. This made them seek refuge in Europe since it’s fairly accessible. The height of the crisis was in 2015 when Europe experienced massive amounts of refugees seeking asylum. Now it is 2020 and while not as many refugees are seeking asylum, it remains a political issue. The definition of a refugee according to the European Union (EU) “a?third-country national?who, owing to a?well-founded fear of persecution?for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the?country of nationality?and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country” (2020). While being more in depth than the UN definition, it narrows who is considered a refugee. The refugees seeking asylum in Europe between 2015 and 2019 were fleeing Syria and other countries in the Middle East because they were being persecuted and feared for their lives. This leads me to define what an asylum seeker is because there is a difference from a refugee. The UNHCR states an asylum seeker as “someone whose request for sanctuary has yet to be processed” (2020). This means that an asylum seeker applies to be an official refugee, and if accepted are granted asylum and safety within the country. After fleeing Syria some people decided to go to Europe via the coasts of Italy or Greece, often trying to make their way in further. In this respect Italy and Greece received the brunt of the refugees, but after some time were physically unable to handle the millions that were seeking asylum. In 2015 alone, over 800,000 refugees arrived in Greece (UNHCR) as shown in Figure 1. Since 2015, the arrival of refugees has decreased which has lessened the strain on European countries. Sadly, travel through the Mediterranean Sea can be very dangerous and many lost their lives trying to reach safety. I want to look at how the governments dealt with the arrival of refugees and the policies the European Union (EU) introduced against this crisis. According to the Dublin Regulation (UNHCR), a country has the ability to place asylum seekers in limbo while processing their application. If they are reject the application the asylum seeker then has the ability to go to another country and try again. The EU responded to refugees entering Europe by requiring other countries, besides Greece and Italy, to open their borders and accept refugees. Some nations abided by these rules, but several others fought 5867400back and disagreed with the new policies. Germany was the first country to fully support5943603336290Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: Source from UNHCRFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: Source from UNHCR the acceptance of refugees. Led by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a right-wing party, these actions can be viewed as contradictory when compared with the ideologies of other right-wing governments. However, based on Germany’s actions other countries followed suit. Countries that refused refugees outright or accepted very few were the far-right leaning countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. In this paper I will analyze and discuss the change in political attitudes towards refugees, focusing on Germany as a leading political actor, and bringing in Poland as a comparison. The Past to PresentGermany and Poland have similar religious backgrounds to one another because Poland is Roman Catholic and Germany is Christian. Due to this they can maintain similar ideologies. Of course, nations can change religion, whether by force or by choice, and therefore change their ideologies. For example, some nations that were once very conservative are now more liberal, such as the United States. However, what appears to be happening within the past 10 years or so is a general move away from openness back to a more conservative mentality. I believe that this is one of the reasons why countries in Europe took different political stances on the refugee crisis. Data can prove that population size of the receiving country was not a factor for accepting refugees because the numbers varied significantly. Poland has around 38 million inhabitants and Germany around 82 million. One would think that because Poland has a larger geographic size, they would be able to support more refugees. Unfortunately, they did not accept nearly enough refugees to comply with EU requirements. The number of refugees accepted by each country varied depending on how strong their economy was at the time, how populated they were, and the stance of their reigning political party. Germany, being a richer country, knew that they could handle a significant number of refugees. A small country like the Czech Republic would probably have struggled with the number Germany received. According to the Asylum Information Database, over the course of two years Germany took in over one million refugees. As recent as 2018 Germany still had almost 50,000 asylum applications from Syrians (AID, 2018). This was not a standard all across Europe, so Germany represents one end of a spectrum. At the opposite could be Hungary and Poland because they accepted hardly any refugee applications despite being able to support them economically and physically if necessary. These two countries specifically have maintained their stance on not accepting refugees into their countries. There are other countries, like Austria that have changed their mind throughout the process. For example, in 2015 Austria had an open border policy but then decided to add border restrictions in 2016. One aspect that needs to be included is the EU-Turkey deal that was made in 2016. Outlined in this deal was cooperation between EU member states and the Turkish government in regard to the large number of Syrian refugees. The goal of each governing body was to help Greece and Italy deal with the influx of refugees while also aiding Turkey with their numbers. The EU proposed the idea because too many people were entering the EU illegally through the Mediterranean. The deal proposed that if a refugee was found to have entered illegally, they were sent to Turkey and in return the EU would take a Syrian refugee from Turkey through legal channels (Lehner, 2019). Through this deal both countries would benefit and be able to handle the massive number of people seeking asylum from Syria. With Germany and Poland I will be able to represent the different stances taken by political parties and governments regarding the refugee intake crisis. There are many factors that contribute to the ideologies of each European country, but the question remains as to why there is such a difference in opinions between historically and religiously similar countries.Theories for Refugee OpinionsWith the rise in right-wing governments in Eastern and Central Europe comes the rise in nationalist sentiments. People are becoming more conservative and looking to keep their countries pure and not “tainted” by refugees. Hungary is perhaps the most severe case of this, Prime Minister Victor Orbán being a main proponent. Orbán is the most powerful far-right leader in Europe at the moment and is imposing many harsh sanctions against minority populations, refugees counting as the largest being discriminated against. In response to the refugees Orbán decided to construct “barbed wire fences…to deter asylum seekers from entering Hungarian territory” (Go?dziak, 2019). Orbán had also publicly denounced the EU plan that involved resettling refugees in other European countries. The Czech Republic also took up a hard stance and opposed the European Commission. “Bohuslav Sobotka, the Czech prime minister, seemed to be riding this wave of xenophobia when he warned that the “immigrants may bring about the collapse of the EU”” (Culik, 2015). The rise in xenophobic and Islamophobic sentiments were being seen as early as 2015, perhaps even before that. The same article discusses how “Islamophobia appears to be on the rise. An organisation called We do not want Islam in the Czech Republic currently has 137,000 likes on Facebook and regularly posts offensive, inflammatory content about Muslims” (Culik, 2015). This occurrence is not specific only to the Czech Republic but can be found in most Central European countries. The most upsetting effect of Syrian refugees seeking asylum in Europe is the assumed rise in racism and racist acts against Syrians.While Poland is not as severe in its vocal ideologies, it might come in at a close second because of the governing conservative Law and Justice party. The question then arises as to how these parties got to be in power and why they still remain in power. One main theory is that these parties feed off the fear of the general public, mainly concerning foreigners and the risk they pose to national identity. Another theory could be related to past historical events that has led to discrimination against immigrants and people of different religions. I believe that a little bit of both has contributed to the responses in Poland and Germany. Poland was occupied by the Soviets for many years and now that they have their own independent country, they want to preserve it at all costs. Germany, on the other hand has had to make a lot of reparations for past crimes, mainly World War II, suggesting that they try to appease the EU so as to not fall out of favor with them. Through these case studies I hope to find a correlation or difference between the respective political parties that can help explain the many opinions surrounding the 2015 refugee crisis. Case Study: GermanyGermany’s population is around 82 million and Chancellor Angela Merkel belongs to the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Compared to Poland, Germany has maintained a fairly positive stance towards accepting refugees. This can largely be attributed to Angela Merkel who decided in 2015 to open Germany’s borders to Syrian refugees. Merkel had a very difficult decision to make and “This forced Merkel, as Europe’s most powerful leader, to act before a humanitarian disaster unfolded on the EU’s rim” (Carrel & Barkin, 2015). At first the refugees were being welcomed by Germans, with hundreds of people even offering to volunteer in setting up temporary shelters to help them get acclimated. However, Merkel eventually began to receive backlash from the citizens who, like most of Europe, felt that their countries were being invaded by outsiders. In the first two years of the refugee crisis Germany took in more people seeking asylum than any other European country. “Germany itself has taken in 1.1 million migrants, the vast majority of those to have entered Europe over the past year. But it's rethinking its open-door refugee policy in the face of increasing difficulties housing migrants and a spate of sexual assaults on women by young male asylum seekers.” (Jamieson, 2016). These were consequences that Merkel probably suspected would happen but thought they could be controlled. 7524756316980Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2: Source from Eurobarometer (2015)00Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2: Source from Eurobarometer (2015)center28194000As seen in Figure 2, in 2015 the most important issue that German (DE) citizens found in their country was the problem of immigration, coming in at a startling 76%. In comparison to the other EU countries, no one else comes anywhere close to Germany’s number simply because the impact of immigration by refugees was not faced yet by other countries. It would be later in 2015, or not until 2016, that immigration could be felt all across the EU. Despite worrying about refugees entering their country, Germans had a fairly positive view in the beginning. Data found by the Berlin Social Science Center (WZB) shows the positive and negative views of refugees separated by each party affiliation in 2016. The largest number of positive views comes from the Green (Grüne) party at almost 50%. Merkel’s party the CDU was fairly even with just over 30% positive views and just under 30% negative. Overall, the positive views from families that belong to the parties listed outweighed the negative in 2016 based on the data seen in Figure 3.center4799330Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3: WRZ No. 151 (2016) MitteilungenFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3: WRZ No. 151 (2016) Mitteilungen598170960755However, by 2018 the policies towards refugees began to change because of political tensions between Merkel’s party and the interior minister Horst Seehofer’s party, the Christian Social Union. Seehofer’s party is more conservative and had the support of Bavaria, a place where Merkel’s party was not operating. The parties coexisted for the most part until the issue of the refugee crisis was brought up. In a report from 2018 by The New York Times, they stated that “Ms. Merkel has staked her legacy on upholding the European Union. A core tenet of the bloc is to maintain open borders among member states. She has also emphasized German leadership on accepting migrants and refugees” (Fisher & Bennhold, 2018). Seehofer’s response to Merkel’s hard stance was a threat. He wanted her to close Germany’s borders or else he might resign which would mean taking Bavaria with him as well as threatening her own position in government and as the head of the CDU. As a result, that year Merkel decided to relent to some of Seehofer’s terms. She restricted borders so that migrants could not enter until their paperwork was accepted. “Sebastian Kurz, the anti-immigration chancellor of Austria,?said?that?if the German government went ahead with the plan, he would take action to seal off Austria’s southern borders with Italy and Slovenia” (Petzinger, 2018). This illustrates how influential Germany was on the refugee stance, and so much so that other countries would follow Germany in the event that they decide to permanently close their borders. The steps that Merkel took to quell rising tensions in Germany were difficult ones. She had to be very careful so as not to close off Germany too much and end up becoming as restrictive as far-right countries like Hungary and Poland. By 2018 the number of migrants seeking asylum had decreased, so Merkel did not have to worry as much about the sheer amount of people trying to enter the country. The biggest influx of refugees occurred in 2015, so by 2018 the worst of it was over, partly due to the EU-Turkey deal and also just a general slowing down of people leaving Syria. “According to Eurostat, the official data collection arm of the E.U., first-time asylum seekers dropped by 25 percent in the first quarter of 2018, in comparison with the same period in 2017” (McAuley & Noack, 2018). It was not just Germany, but all across Europe that saw a decrease in people seeking asylum. “Germany pledged 10,200 resettlement places for 2018/19. By the end of 2019, 7,974 refugees had been resettled, including 4,987 Syrian refugees under the EU-Turkey deal” (Amnesty Intl, 2019). Germany is respected by other European countries because of its high economic prosperity, so it has the ability to set standards for the rest of the EU. Theoretically, if it were to close its borders, other EU countries would most likely follow suit. By embracing a right-wing mentality, Merkel was walking a fine line. Germany has managed to maintain its stance as being a more liberal European country, which meant that any change could severely jeopardize Merkel’s position as well as the safety of migrants.Despite some disapproval from citizens, there have been many studies conducted that prove that refugees have not negatively impacted the country. Instead, there have been a plethora of benefits, both economically and culturally. When Merkel first declared the open arms policy in 2015, she stated that she wanted to improve cultural relations and diversity in Germany. Another reason why it was easier for Germany to allow over a million refugees in was because it was capable of supporting them economically. For example, in 2015 “German unemployment [wa]s running at 6.4 percent, the lowest since reunification in 1990, and strong economic growth allowed the government to make a record 21 billion euro ($24 billion) budget surplus in the first half of the year” (Carrel & Barkin, 2015). Other European countries, such as those in Eastern Europe, did not have the same financial stability that would have allowed them to accept as many refugees. This cannot be the excuse for all countries however, because other countries such as Germany had a stable economy but simply chose to deny refugees seeking asylum. While people only assume the worst with immigrants, this is not the case. Those who are granted asylum typically want to live a quiet life and assimilate as best they can into the new society. According to a study conducted by researchers Yue Huang and Michael Kvasnicka from the University of Magdeburg, it was determined that an increase in crime in Germany cannot be attributed to refugees. They stated that other reports simply used “crude” crime figures or numbers that just looked at total crime amounts (Lindsay, 2019). Their research yielded different results than other studies conducted because of how they measured crime. “We did not find a systematic association between the number of refugees and the number of German victims, in crimes that were committed by refugees. We do not find any link between these two things” (Lindsay, 2019). They focused instead on crimes that dealt solely with refugees. In some cases, they discovered an increase in crime where refugees were the victims and Germans the perpetrators. In a report by BBC, the right-wing political group Alternative for Germany (AfD) stated that crime had increased, and refugees were the cause. “Since 2014, the proportion of non-German suspects in the crime statistics has increased from 24% to just over 30%...in 2017 those classified as "asylum applicants or civil war refugees or illegal immigrants" represented a total of 8.5% of all suspects. This is despite their population representing just 2% of Germany as a whole” (BBC, 2018). It can be assumed that this report was released to bolster nationalist sentiment and increase hatred against refugees. However, as long as the reigning party continues to be more liberal and accepting, the threat against refugees should not escalate any further.Case Study: PolandIn comparison to Germany and Austria, Poland represents a severe case of anti-immigrant rhetoric. Poland consists of a population of around 38.3 million which is substantial when compared to other European countries. Considering their population size and ability to provide for and support that amount of people, it is surprising that the country has refused to take in refugees. Sadly, this is also the case with the United States who also does not accept many refugees. This trend can be attributed to Poland’s past history with war and violence as well as the current reigning political party, the Law and Justice party (PiS). Since 2015, the height of the Europe’s refugee crisis, there has been a more extreme turn to the right with President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki holding power within the government. Both men were supported by PiS and have been able to make considerable changes to the legal system as a result of their governmental positions. Morawiecki’s goals while in office were to “limit the power of the judiciary, promote a conservative Catholic social agenda, and oppose European Union demands to accept Muslim refugees” (BBC, 2018). This far-right agenda aligned with President Buda and the current leader of PiS, Jaroslaw Kaczynski because they ran their platform to show solidarity among the Polish race and distinguish themselves from the rest of the EU. Compared with Germany, Poland has maintained a firm stance since the refugee crisis began. The EU has been threatening Poland, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, to accept refugees. In response, the Prime Minister sent out a statement saying that they were refusing the EU’s demands and that they would not help Italy and Greece with the influx of asylum seekers. “The three ex-communist countries on the EU’s eastern flank refused to take in any of those refugees and migrants, citing security concerns, and questioned the legal grounds for the EU assigning each country a fixed quota of people to accept” (Ekblom, 2019). Other countries, despite having both smaller populations and geographical areas have accepted more refugees than Poland due to pressure from the EU. So, why then do Poland and other Eastern European countries feel that they are exempt from this law? For example, Austria is significantly smaller than Poland but accepted more refugees despite also disagreeing with the EU. It’s interesting to see why Poland has remained steady on their position regarding Muslim refugees when they could potentially benefit their economy, as with the case of Germany. Based on recent data, Poland has accepted far more refugees fleeing political turmoil in Ukraine than from Middle Eastern countries. “Poland issued more first-time residence permits to non-EU citizens than any other EU nation in 2017, with 86% of them going to Ukrainians, in the latest available European migration statistics (Trofimov, 2019). The government has even issued statements that show their bias because “Poland faces a shortage of labor -- and the country's conservative government has favored Ukrainians because most are Christian, unlike Muslim immigrants from Syria or Afghanistan” (Trofimov, 2019). Despite governmental tensions between Poland and Ukraine, Poland has been quietly accepting these migrant workers, more than any other country in the EU. “According to Eurostat, more than 683,000 foreigners received their first residence permits in Poland in 2017, the highest number for any country in the European Union. There are now over two million Ukrainians working in Poland, most flocking to cities that are the engines driving the Polish economy” (Santora, 2019). In this article by the New York Times, the main concern Poland now has is whether the Ukrainian migrants will stay or leave for Germany where they might have better opportunities. Germany is even changing some of their requirements for migrant workers so that it would be easier for Ukrainians to work there. Poland has been benefitting economically from this influx of workers, but this success might be short lived. The government has acknowledged the benefit of immigrant workers, especially because many native Poles are leaving the country in search of new opportunities. The right-wing Polish government thinks of Ukrainians as being culturally and ethnically similar. The citizens themselves even agree because “In the Netherlands, I can see the difference between the Poles and the Dutch. But here, I can't even spot who is a Ukrainian until they start talking” (Trofimov, 2019). While Ukraine is suffering from an economic crisis, Poland is able to benefit by gaining workers to fill jobs that are considered ‘minority’ jobs.center2042160Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4: Anatomy of Anti-Immigrant Discourse in Poland; from Kinga Polynczuk-Alenius (2020)Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4: Anatomy of Anti-Immigrant Discourse in Poland; from Kinga Polynczuk-Alenius (2020)center0Nationalist sentiment from Polish citizens is what has fueled the ongoing hatred and anti-immigration view towards Muslim refugees. Figure 4 shown above outlines the way that Poles feel towards immigration, mostly seeing it as a threat to their self-defining features. They define themselves as Western which means that any variation is considered ‘other’. This goes hand and hand with the sentiment they have that because of their religion and Western-ness they are deserving of their identity and people not from their country are therefore unworthy. The Law and Justice party has been able to feed off these feelings to keep Poland as ethnically pure as possible. Some of their slogans include “Poland is for Poles” and “Pure Poland, White Poland”. A lot of these sentiments are reminiscent of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda. The problem is that the majority of Polish citizens support the Law and Justice party’s ideals. “And in a July 2017 survey whose results shocked many in the Polish establishment,?51.2 percent?said that Poland should refuse to accept Muslim migrants even if it meant that the country would have to leave the European Union. This despite the fact Poles are generally very pro-EU, with 88 percent supporting Poland’s membership in the bloc” (Adekoya, 2017). Being in the bloc is seen as a good thing to Poles, but they do not agree with many of the sanctions that the EU has made. The country is majority ethnically white, around 99%, and does not support diversity. In the Foreign Affairs article mentioned above, there was a survey conducted in which “only 14 percent of Poles agreed that “having an increasing number of people of different races and nationalities” in one’s country makes it a “better place to live”” (Adekoya, 2017). Even after witnessing diversity in other areas of Europe, Poles agree that they like their country as it is now, with no diversity. This question was answered by Germans and Swedes and 26% and 36%, respectively, said they would support a more diverse country. With these statistics it is no wonder that Muslims are not accepted into Polish society. Poles think that Muslims would not assimilate well, unlike Ukrainians who can based simply on the way they look. Unfortunately, Poles do not even allow acceptance to occur because of their preconceived biases. Having a far-right party in power means that Polish rhetoric is harsh and may continue to exclude people in the future no matter the fact that they might be fleeing a war-torn country and simply want a place to feel safe. AnalysisAfter looking at both countries listed above, it can be theorized that the main causes of anti-immigration rhetoric are due to the attitudes and policies of right-wing politicians. Right-wing parties have been gaining headway among citizens, especially the AfD in Bavaria, thereby influencing public rhetoric. Both Germany and Poland currently have right or far-right ruling political parties. Despite supporting similar political ideologies, the way that each country reacted to the influx of refugees varied greatly. Poland reflects the mindset of its citizens by being more conservative and anti-immigrant in nature. Although, through the example of Poland accepting Ukrainians, it seems that this immigration bias only applies to people who are not Catholic, but Muslims. Interestingly enough Poland stood out against other European countries in 2015 by not mentioning immigration or refugees in any political campaign or party platform. “This changed in the summer of that year when anti-immigrant discourse, in part transnationally linked to the Western far right…shifted from the margins into the mainstream. While the number of foreigners in Poland went up from 193,000 legally resident non-citizens in 2015 to 300,000 in 2017, this increase is accounted for almost completely by immigration from Ukraine” (Follis, 2019). Once refugees began to enter the minds of the public, parties were forced to address concerns and include talks in their platforms. This is when PiS ran an anti-immigrant campaign in order to gain support from the ethnically Polish who fear the ‘other’. Working off the fear of a society is one of the most effective tactics a political party can use because they often win, as seen with PiS. It takes courage to stand up for what is right, and unfortunately this did not happen on a scale large enough to carry out change in Poland.Poland specifically has remained unyielding in their stance on refugee migration and this can be attributed to their strong nationalist feelings, the Law and Justice party, and general anti-immigrant sentiment as mentioned before. The Law and Justice party came into power at a crucial point amid the refugee crisis. The previous Polish government had agreed to take in refugees, but Andrzej Duda refused to acknowledge this past agreement and instead make his own. Duda then continued to increase nationalist mentality among Polish citizens and actually refused orders from the European Commission (EC). When the EC announced that Poland, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, breached EU law, Duda made a statement that he would refuse to comply. He argued, “Poland was an open country and willing to help people in vital danger, but disagreed to forced resettlement on its territory” (Prezydent.pl, 2017). Another argument was made that the EC was violating the rights of EU members by forcing refugee quotas upon countries. This was only made possible because the Party “simply tapped into underlying worldviews and emboldened the expression of them via the legitimizing power of the state” (Adekoya, 2017). Racism in Poland extends past Muslims. The country also discriminates towards other minorities, LGBTQ people, and just about any other person that does not fit into their mold of a white, Catholic citizen. It seems that as time goes on this has begun to apply to countries besides those of Hungary and Poland. Austria’s chancellor Sebastian Kurz seems to be joining the ranks of conservatism, which could mean detrimental policy changes for other European countries in the future.ConclusionAt first glance it might seem obvious why some countries maintain certain stances regarding the refugee intake crisis of 2015. Without knowing the whole picture, it can be impossible to see the answer. I for one realize that even after extensive research, I have no way of knowing the entire picture. There are still many things I do not have an in-depth understanding of, such as cultural differences and immigration policies in these nations. For example, Poland’s stance on refugees is very confusing because the President has stated that he supports refugees but also wants to restrict the movement of them. Chancellor Kurz from Austria said in an interview with The Washington Post that “We are not against immigration, but we want to have control on immigration. We want to decide who is allowed to come into Austria” (Weymouth, 2019). What does not make sense about this is the way he promotes Syrian refugees to enter the country but enforces the law to send them back to Syria if they are rejected. In this recent interview he also mentioned that “We tried to integrate those who came as refugees to Austria during the last years, but on the other hand, we tried to reduce the flow of those who want to come but have no right to come to our country” (Weymouth, 2019). By “no right”, he is referring to Syrian asylum seekers whose applications were placed in limbo for a longer than normal amount of time. The goal was to decrease the number of Syrians let into the country. Despite knowing the terror these refugees face at home, he was quick to deport them back to a war-torn country.Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has faced a lot of backlash from her policies but overall, they seem the most beneficial for refugees out of every other EU country. In order to appease everyone, she has had to become more restrictive with her policies against refugees, which has resulted in growing conservatism. “Interior Ministry figures provided in response to a question from lawmakers from The Left party show that following the migrant crisis the number of deportations nearly doubled to 20,000 a year and have stayed roughly at that level ever since, despite the steep drop in arrivals” (Shubert, Schmidt, 2019). These statistics apply to Germany, who like Austria have begun deporting refugees back to either the country they first entered in the EU, or the country where they fled from. One other policy that Germany has enacted is labeling countries as “safe”. If refugees are from these safe countries, then they must return because they are seen as not needing protection. This does not apply to Syrians because as per the law, if someone can prove they are from Syria they are automatically granted sanctuary. This is fortunate for Syrian asylum seekers but then makes the process much more difficult for other people that claim to need asylum status.Poland is in itself a separate case. It resides on the further end of the spectrum from Germany because the government is far-right and severely conservative. In the media the Polish government has produced anti-Semitic and anti-immigration rhetoric, and recently also has a strong anti-genderism view towards women (Polynczuk-Alenius, 2020). These perspectives tend to run through all conservative, right-wing countries. European countries are slowly mirroring countries like Poland and Hungary which would not bode well for refugees or minorities. “Immigration skeptics, under the guise of humanitarian concerns, claim that cracking down on refugee rights reduces incentives for migration and thus prevents dangerous voyages across the Mediterranean” (Lang, 2019). This is untrue because the EU can safely bring migrants over from their home countries. However, this becomes the rhetoric that right-wing people preach in order to instill fear in citizens. People who believe in immigration are claimed to be na?ve despite there being statistical benefits of immigration in European countries. Poland accepts Ukrainians but refuses Muslims, because Ukrainians benefit their economy and they can more easily assimilate. This shows how PiS projects their Islamophobic ideologies onto the public. Unless the governments in Eastern and Central Europe are replaced by people who believe in more accepting and liberal policies, it is assumed that nothing will change, and life will only get worse for refugees and immigrants. More research should be done in order to prove the motives behind the decisions of these countries, but until then we can assume that their decisions were made under the guise of protecting their assets without concern for individuals.Works Cited and ConsultedAdekoya, Remi. “Why Poland's Law and Justice Party Remains So Popular.”?Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 9 Oct. 2018, articles/central-europe/2017-11-03/why-polands-law-and-justice-party-remains-so-popular.“Austria Country Profile.”?BBC News, BBC, 27 Sept. 2019, news/world-europe-17405422.“Austria Unveils Plan to Cut Benefits for Immigrants.”?BBC News, BBC, 28 May 2018, news/world-europe-44281683.Bell, Bethany. “Salzburg Summit: Austria Leads EU's Anti-Migrant Drive.”?BBC News, BBC, 19 Sept. 2018, news/world-europe-45558510.Bell, Bethany. “The Young Austrian Leader Sharing Power with the Far Right.”?BBC News, BBC, 30 June 2018, news/world-europe-44644099.Carrel, Paul. “Refugee Crisis Shows the Changing Soul of Germany.”?Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 13 Sept. 2015, article/us-europe-migrants-germany-insight/refugee-crisis-shows-the-changing-soul-of-germany-idUSKCN0RD0JU20150913.Culik, Jan. “Anti-Immigrant Walls and Racist Tweets: the Refugee Crisis in Central Europe.” The Conversation, 24 June 2015, anti-immigrant-walls-and-racist-tweets-the-refugee-crisis-in-central-europe-43665.Ekblom, Jonas. “Poland, Hungary Broke EU Laws by Refusing to Host Migrants: Court Adviser.”?Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 31 Oct. 2019, article/us-europe-migration-court/poland-hungary-broke-eu-laws-by-refusing-to-host-migrants-court-adviser-idUSKBN1XA1S5.“EU to Sue Poland, Hungary and Czechs for Refusing Refugee Quotas.”?BBC News, BBC, 7 Dec. 2017, news/world-europe-42270239.“Everything You Need to Know about Human Rights in Germany.”?Everything You Need to Know about Human Rights in Germany| Amnesty International | Amnesty International, Amnesty International, 2019, en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/germany/report-germany/.Fisher, Max & Bennhold, Katrin. “Germany's Europe-Shaking Political Crisis Over Migrants, Explained.”?The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 July 2018, 2018/07/03/world/europe/germany-political-crisis.html.Follis, Karolina. "Rejecting Refugees in Illiberal Poland: The Response from Civil Society."?Journal of Civil Society, vol. 15, no. 4, 2019, pp. 307-325.“Germany Country Profile.”?BBC News, BBC, 17 Sept. 2018, news/world-europe-17299607.Go?dziak, El?bieta M. “Using Fear of the ‘Other," Orbán Reshapes Migration Policy in a Hungary Built on Cultural Diversity.” , Migration Policy Institute, 5 Nov. 2019, article/orban-reshapes-migration-policy-hungary.Jamieson, Alastair. “Refugee Crisis: Austria Limits Asylum to 1.5 Percent of Population.”?, NBCUniversal News Group, 20 Jan. 2016, storyline/europes-border-crisis/refugee-crisis-austria-limits-asylum-1-5-percent-population-n500326.Kurz, Sebastian. “Austria Chancellor Sebastian Kurz on the EU's Migrant Crisis.”?Time, Time, 18 Dec. 2017, 5068561/sebastian-kurz-austria-chancellor-migrant-crisis/.Kuzmany, B?rries. “Changes and Continuities in Austria's Coping with Refugee Crises over Three Centuries.”?Journal of Austrian-American History, vol. 2, no. 2, 2019, pp. 116–141., doi:10.5325/jaustamerhist.2.2.0116.Lang, Johannes. “Tear Down the Fortress: Europe and the Refugee Crisis.”?Harvard Political Review Tear Down the Fortress Europe and the Refugee Crisis Comments, 3 Apr. 2019, columns-old/tear-down-the-fortress/.Lehner, Roman. "The EU‐Turkey‐'Deal': Legal Challenges and Pitfalls."?International Migration, vol. 57, no. 2, 2019, pp. 176-185.Lindsay, Frey. “Refugees In Germany Did Not Bring Higher Risk To Germans.”?Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 29 Aug. 2019, sites/freylindsay/2019/08/29/refugees-in-germany-did-not-bring-higher-risk-to-germans/#36090ccb1101.McAuley, James & Noack, Rick. “What You Need to Know about Germany's Immigration Crisis.”?The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Apr. 2019, news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-immigration-crisis/.“Migration to Europe in Charts.”?BBC News, BBC, 11 Sept. 2018, news/world-europe-44660699.Morawiecki, Mateusz. “Poland Refuses Mid East Migrants.”?Euronews, 2 Jan. 2018, 2018/01/02/poland-refuses-mid-east-migrants.Petzinger, Jill. “Angela Merkel Has Ditched Her Open-Door Refugee Policy to Save Her Government.”?Quartz, Quartz, 4 July 2018, 1319399/angela-merkel-agrees-to-abandon-germanys-open-door-refugee-policy-to-save-her-government/.“Poland Country Profile.”?BBC News, BBC, 28 May 2018, news/world-europe-17753718.Polynczuk-Alenius, Kinga. "At the Intersection of Racism and Nationalism: Theorising and Contextualising the ‘anti-Immigration’ Discourse in Poland."?Nations and Nationalism, 2020.“Prezydent.pl.”?President of the Republic of Poland / News / President Condemns Punishment for Polish "No" to Refugees, 13 June 2017, president.pl/en/news/art,470,president-condemns-punishment-for-polish-no-to-refugees.html.“Reality Check: Are Migrants Driving Crime in Germany?”?BBC News, BBC, 13 Sept. 2018, news/world-europe-45419466.Santora, Marc. “Poland Bashes Immigrants, but Quietly Takes Christian Ones.”?The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Mar. 2019, 2019/03/26/world/europe/immigration-poland-ukraine-christian.html.Shubert, Atika, and Nadine Schmidt. “Germany Rolls up Refugee Welcome Mat to Face off Right-Wing Threat.”?CNN, Cable News Network, 27 Jan. 2019, 2019/01/26/europe/germany-refugee-deportations-intl/index.html.Squires, Nick. “Austria Refuses to Take in Any More Refugees under Stalled EU Scheme.”?The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 28 Mar. 2017, telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/28/austria-refuses-take-refugees-stalled-eu-scheme/.“Statistics.” Statistics - Germany | Asylum Information Database, European Council of Refugees and Exiles, 2018, reports/country/germany/statistics.“Statistics.”?Statistics - Poland | Asylum Information Database, European Council of Refugees and Exiles reports/country/poland/statistics.The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Syrian Civil War.” Encyclop?dia Britannica, Encyclop?dia Britannica, Inc., 31 Mar. 2020, event/Syrian-Civil-War.Trofimov, Yaroslav. “Turning Muslims Away, Poland Welcomes Ukrainians.”?The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 26 Mar. 2019, articles/turning-muslims-away-poland-welcomes-ukrainians-11553598000.UNHCR. “3RP Regional, Refugee & Resilience Plan 2018-2019.” Regional Strategic Overview, 2017, reporting.sites/default/files/Syria%203RP%20Regional%20Strategic%20Overview%202018-2019%20%28December%202017%29.pdf.Weymouth, Lally. “Perspective | 'We Want to Decide Who Is Allowed to Come into Austria'.”?The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Feb. 2019, outlook/we-want-to-decide-who-is-allowed-to-come-into-austria/2019/02/21/ca2a4388-35fb-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html.“What's Happening in Syria? - CBBC Newsround.” BBC News, BBC, 16 Oct. 2019, bbc.co.uk/newsround/16979186.WZB Mitteilungen. Berlin Social Science Center. Germany. Vol. 151, WRZ, 2016. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download