Putting Heads Together: Migration and Asylum on the Table in Portugal[1]
Elizabeth Challinor[2] with Cristina Santinho[3]
The seminar entitled “50 years since the Carnation Revolution, 5 years of the Refugee Forum: New Realities of Asylum and Immigration in Portugal”, organized by Cristina Santinho (researcher at CRIA Iscte-IUL) and Alexander Kpatue (coordinator of Refuge Forum), and fruit of a partnership between the Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA) and the Refuge Forum Portugal , together with the support of the Union of Refugees in Portugal (UREP)– provided a meeting ground for the discussion of different perspectives and approaches towards migration and asylum, many of which pointed towards the need to move beyond making diagnoses of the current situation, towards finding and implementing more durable and robust solutions.
Alexandro Nuno Teixeira, Ambassador of the Refuge Forum opened the seminar arguing that “the joint celebration of the Carnation Revolution (25 April) and World Refugee Day constituted an opportunity to reflect on the past, evaluate the present and plan for a future based on [the shared values of] freedom, social justice and inclusion”. Listing the challenges that that lie ahead – guaranteeing access to housing, employment, health and education he encouraged participants to pool and share their knowledge about the issues raised in more detail. The UNHCR Representative of Associate Resettlement Officer in Portugal, Elzbieta Gorska set the global scene: the number of forcibly displaced persons, within and across borders is constantly on the increase, with half a million more in 2024 than last year. Of the people who already have refugee status but need resettlement, only 5% achieve this every year. The Pact on Migration and Asylum (approved on 10 April 2024 by the European Parliament), which aims to institutionalize solidarity between EU and Third Nations, raises several concerns for the UNHCR, including how automatic detentions, accelerated processes and lack of measures for vulnerable groups may deny people’s rights. Nonetheless, the Pact still holds potential, if effective access to hosting territories is guaranteed and in the case of Portugal, if the necessary resources are allocated for increased coordination between institutions, civil society and refugees.
Giuilia Daniele took us to the crux of the refuge issue – with a presentation on the current situation in occupied Palestine – reminding us that it is not about rejecting the homeland, but about social justice and human rights. The current unprecedented indiscriminate attacking of hospitals, schools and universities, within a broader context of seventy-six years of the violation of the civil and human rights of Palestinians, provides a hallowing reminder that political will lies at the heart of implementing more durable and robust solutions. Giuilia’s call for scholarships for students from Gaza to study in universities in Lisbon constitutes a concrete measure of solidarity which could pave the way forward for other universities in Portugal to follow suite.
Commenting on how the money provided by the state to refugees during their hosting contracts is not enough to live on in Portugal, Alexander Kpatue gave an account of how the Refuge Forum (Forúm Refugio) as acted upon its mission to empower refugees, providing support over the last five years, which has included the provision of medicine and food for 350 people, the creation of an artistic residence and the promotion of social contact between women of different origins, to combat loneliness. Echoing earlier calls for increased collaboration, Cristina Santinho praised the Forum’s capacity to bring people together at the table with various perspectives and diverse responses – local authorities, NGOs and state institutions, from the north to the south of the country – and for having invited researchers to participate in the Forum, in an initiative called the Academies at the Table.
Whilst praising the asylum law on paper, Tito Matos, representing the Portuguese Council for Refugees (CPR), claimed that 2023 was the worst year ever for CPR, since receiving large numbers of asylum-seekers was rendered even more difficult with the extinction of the Immigration and Border Services (SEF, now AIMA). Arguing that there was no common thread for the implementation of policies, Tito Matos claimed that more coordination is required with the Institute of Social Security which is the official interlocutor for refugees at the end of their hosting contracts. Building on this, he added that practice has taught CPR that reception should not be separated, but rather be seen as part of the integration process (for which CPR has recently launched 84 recommendations), to guarantee consistency and continuity in the services provided. However, without financial investment, human resources and competencies, policies will remain on paper.
The large gap between law-on-paper and law-in-practice was also highlighted by the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), when Nuno Costa Jorge argued that the room this gap leaves for interpretation renders officials afraid of making mistakes, resulting in a tendency towards stricter, more defensive interpretations of the law. Whilst JRS has helped refugees to receive the correct legal interpretation from doubting street-level bureaucrats, on issues such as the validity of the asylum seeker status to count towards legal residence for the acquisition of nationality, there should be more clarification of the law in general, how it works and how it should be interpreted. In agreement with these analyses of the shortcomings of the system, Catarina Bento, from the association CRESCER, also spoke about the housing crisis and how employment opportunities for refugees are lost because they cannot find accommodation.
The Portuguese asylum system also provides differential treatment for asylum-seekers who are relocated through programmes and those who arrive on their own. The former, for example, are entitled to free accommodation during their hosting contracts whilst the latter must pay rent. Talking about working with unaccompanied foreign youth (choosing the term youth rather than minors) relocated from Greece to Leiria via the Relocation Programme[4] and with youth who arrive from Tenerife on their own, Carolina Cravo from the association INPULSAR, spoke of the difficulties in explaining and justifying these differential treatments. Moreover, only 3 out of 10 of the asylum seekers from Tenerife have to date received refugee status, exacerbating their frustrations and sense of unequal treatment given the hesitations of street-level bureaucrats to safeguard their rights, as already referred to above.
Alexandre Nuno Teixeira from the FOCUS Foundation of Aga Khan, claiming that it is time to move beyond diagnoses added to the familiar list of frustrations, including the inability to take up work due not only to housing shortages but to lack of childcare facilities. Mirroring the idea that reception and integration cannot be separated, they argued that civil society solidarities need to extend beyond emergency periods and gave the example of people who had offered their second homes to Ukrainians only to request them to leave a few months later with the summer holidays approaching. The issue of the need for equality in mental health provision for refugees at a national level – extensive to the local population – was also raised whilst at the same time pointing out that refugees should not be viewed merely as victims of trauma and that hosting staff require cultural competency training to learn how to deal with cultural differences. Cristina Santinho challenged the hosting institutions on the panel to draw up a joint document to present to the (newly created) Agency for Immigration and Asylum (AIMA) to move beyond diagnosis with concrete recommendations, in search of political solutions arguing that just as in the case of 25th April, unity is strength.
Speaking in name of the Association of the Union of Refugees in Portugal (UREP), Alexander Kpatue Kweh argued that access to rights have deteriorated in the last few years and referred to the efforts associations have made to work with the institutions responsible for refugee reception. He also identified the need to expand the associations’ role as mediators to be seen as full partners in promoting integration processes.
Diaby Abdourahamane from the Association of Refugees in Portugal (ARP) also criticized the tendency to focus on diagnosis, arguing that giving voice to refugees is not just about being heard. The real reason, he argued, for creating associations in Portugal is political. The key words are representation and participation, and Diaby Abdourahamane pointed out that the right to meet and defend rights are enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution. An association is a legal, official instrument for communicating with the authorities. However, it is not enough to communicate, it is important to acquire an active voice; this means influencing the decision-making processes. It is time for refugees and immigrants to become members of parliament, and as such, to be able to say yes or no to laws and decrees that affect their lives. Mobility restrictions due to legal status, constitutes a case in point.
The denial of the right to travel of young Nigerian students, who fled to Portugal from Ukraine without documents and were granted temporary protection was discussed by Ademi Aderemi Sunday (Nigerians in Diaspora Organization Europe – Portugal). Traumatised by the war in Ukraine, they are unable to visit their parents in Nigeria. What document could be issued to enable them to travel in the summer holiday? Their inability to book an appointment with AIMA, was commented upon by Diaby Abdourahamane, pointing out that no other state institution works so badly. “Fifty years ago, it was the Portuguese people couldn’t speak and would be imprisoned if they did. Now, after 50 years, it’s no longer the Portuguese who can’t speak; it’s foreign nationals who pay taxes but can’t say a word.”
The following session, moderated by Elizabeth Challinor, (CRIA UNL- FCSH) brought academia into the debate and began with Emellin de Oliveira’s (NOVA School of Law/CEDIS) discussion of the emphasis on fortified borders and speed in the New Pact on Migration. The Pact has exchanged directives (that took more time to come into effect since they required EU legislation to be transposed into national law) for binding regulations that are directly applicable in all EU member states. She questioned how the acceleration of procedures for examining asylum claims and in giving priority to the return of migrants will safeguard their rights.
Sílvia Leiria Viegas (CIAC/UAlg) drew attention to the particularities of the housing crisis in Central Algarve, where the issue of seasonal labour poses migrants with the stark option of work on the coast without a home or a home inland without work. She highlighted the importance of fostering intercultural community relations, expression through the Arts and of giving community building space in the public sphere, noting that there was also some resistance to this.
The importance, not only of solidarity, but also of our choice of words was discussed by Dora Rebelo, to guard against depicting migration as a burden and treating individuals as mere numbers. Echoing earlier concerns about refugees’ lack of voice in Portugal, she talked about the violence of waiting, labelled the detention of asylum seekers without a hearing as a post-shame practice and argued that the integration indicators for refugees should be more tailored to the specificities of individuals.
Gabriele De Angelis (IFILNOVA, NOVA, FCSH) discussed the possibility of climate refugees as an addendum to the Geneva Convention and gave us a handle from Political Philosophy on how to argue against the claim that states are only responsible for their own citizens. State refusal to take responsibility and apply the principles of freedom and liberty outside their national boundaries is challenged by the argument in Political Philosophy that draws on people’s right to satisfy basic needs. If they cannot be met where they are, then the international community should intervene, such as facilitating safe passage, or grating refugee status. It may be worth noting that states don’t question the legitimacy of the externalization of their borders for security controls.
“De-bordering” solidarity – the contesting of asylum policies and borders in practice by civil society actors – was discussed by Erica Briozzo (APPsy, ISPA, IUL) as a means of challenging the “structural abandonment” of migrants. Drawing on focus group work with female migrants in Braga, Erica Briozzo gave a comprehensive discussion of what a feminist perspective on empowerment entails, taking us beyond mere economic interests.
The right to migrate was discussed by Ana Miguel Regedor (Instituto de Investigação Interdisciplinar, CES, Uni Coimbra) through an analysis of preliminary data on the challenges and opportunities of migration from the Maghreb to southern Portugal which resulted in the identification of five key words: human rights, dignity, autonomy, political support and networking. As noted above, another key word – Art – could be added to the list and this was poignantly demonstrated in the presentation by Olga Krysanova (Master student, Dpt, Anthropology, Iscte-IUL) on “Unaccompanied Minor’s Refugees” imagining their futures through art practices[5]. These workshops, we were told, turn the focus away from trauma and do not require words. They also constitute a means for migrants to express themselves in a judgement free space. We were presented with two masks, one happy and smiling, to represent the external image a young refugee felt compelled to present to the world and the other was private: less colourful and with a cross over the lips. This contrast serves as a painful reminder of the silencing of refugees’ voices, expressions and emotions as they are expected to conform to normative stereotypes of the deserving, grateful refugee. Yet the beauty of these masks also touches us to the core of our humanity; reminding us how Art is not only a form of self-expression, but also a fundamental dimension of integration, building bridges between people.
Alternative ways of promoting integration were discussed through the presentation of projects in the panel chaired by Sílvia Leiria Viegas (CIAC/UAlg). Rachele Antonini, (Universidade de Bolonha) presented the European Union’s Horizon 2020 project – New ABC – focusing on the co-creation of nine pilot actions aimed at the inclusion of migrant children and young people through education. Margarida Damas, (Innovative Prison Systems) presented the European Erasmus + project –REFUGIN – and described its community approach towards the long-term holistic integration of young refugees. The rationale behind both projects resonated with the recommendations made earlier in the day that reception and integration should be promoted as interrelated processes. We would envision this as a continuous holistic approach towards social and economic inclusion.
The discussions of the final panel of the day – “Forum collaborations: coordination in the search for answers to reception questions,” moderated by Alexandre Nuno Teixeira, Ambassador of the Refuge Forum, reminded us that integration is also about the art of navigating bureaucracies. Nélia Dias, representing the Centre Father Alves Correia (CEPAC) presented the ComUnidade project, financed by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) which has worked in collaboration with Fórum Refúgio in Arroios, Lisbon providing services to people in search of work, documents and regularization. Rosa de Angelis described the challenges posed in similar services provided by the Christian Italian Workers’ Association (ACLI) in Italy, Bologna and Cyntia de Paula president of Casa do Brasil, helped to debunk the myths of migrants and refugees, already referred to above, as burdens to the host society, with specific examples from the Brazilian community.
During the break, and in keeping with the notion of the importance of Art in raising awareness, participants were able to visit the exhibition of the artwork created in the workshops described above by Olga Krysanova and two photographic collections created by unaccompanied minors from Morrocco and several sub-Saharan countries, entitled “Kids on their own.” The photographs resulted from a NEW ABC workshop implemented by the French association COMBO and explore the links between the visibility and empowerment of the protagonist subjects/photographers at crucial points in their trajectories.
To conclude, if migration and asylum policies are to achieve the objectives of freedom and social justice, the experiences, input and wealth of ideas that were shared in this event, give out a clear message to the state that bringing refugees, practitioners and academics together[6] and listening to what they have to say, is the way forward. It also takes us beyond the topics of migration and asylum, constituting a good practice for public debate, for public accountability and for the protection of democracy.
[1] The authors would like to thank Alexandre Nuno Teixeira, Alexander Kpatue Kweh, Dora Rebelo, Sílvia Leiria Viegas and Nélia Dias for providing notes on the contents of some of the presentations.
[2] Elizabeth Challinor is Researcher at the Centre for Research in Anthropology CRIA at the Nova University of Lisbon. Her research is financed by FCT within the CRIA strategic plan, (UIDB/04038/2020; 2021.02343.CEECIND, https://doi.org/10.54499/2021.02343.CEECIND/CP1701/CT0002).
[3] Cristina Santinho isa senior researcher at Centre for Research in Anthropology CRIA, at Iscte-IUL. Her main topic of research is refugees and asylum seekers. Her research is also financed by FCT within the CRIA strategic plan, (UIDB/ANT/04038/2020. https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/authors/cristina-santinho/cv.
[4] 17 peace activists from Afghanistan which raises a topical question discussed elsewhere in Europe of whether peace activist could be transformed into a legal status.
[5] Work in progress with Cristina Santinho.
[6] Invitations to participate in the event were also sent to representatives of relevant state and international institutions to which there was no reply.
