Common sense or racism? The treatment of asylum-seekers in Europe
Common sense or racism? The treatment of asylum-seekers in Europe
复制标题
常识还是种族主义？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Liza Schuster
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Liza Schuster
这期关于难民和仇外心理的特刊的介绍性文章----其中的文章主要集中在寻求庇护者，2大多数在联合王国，但也有在法国和爱尔兰的寻求庇护者----客座编辑Liza Schuster在文章中借鉴了撰稿人的工作和她自己在英国、法国、德国和意大利的研究，探讨欧洲国家对待寻求庇护者的问题。欧洲自由民主国家共同承诺向需要保护的人提供庇护，这一承诺通过签署1951年《关于难民地位的日内瓦公约》而具有法律约束力。他们还共同致力于平等和不歧视原则。然而，近年来，欧洲国家采取了允许歧视和不平等对待寻求庇护者的做法，英国政府最近的提案威胁到1951年公约本身。舒斯特质疑了一些庇护政策的基本假设，特别是在英国，但也参考了其他欧洲国家，认为常识断言的“需要控制”，这是对寻求庇护者的区别对待，特别是表达了种族主义在欧洲国家的心脏。她还认为，在边境，种族主义以复杂和不断变化的方式与阶级和性别交织在一起，造成了被排斥者的等级制度。在讨论种族主义和其他形式的排斥，舒斯特审查的做法，通过这种种族主义是明确的。
In her introductory essay to this special issue on refugees and xenophobia--in which the articles focus primarily on asylum-seekers,2 mostly in the United Kingdom, but also in France and Ireland--guest editor Liza Schuster draws on the work of the contributors and on her own research in Britain, France, Germany and Italy to address the treatment of asylum-seekers by European states. European liberal democracies share a common commitment to granting asylum to those in need of protection, a commitment made legally binding by signing the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. They also share a commitment to principles of equality and non-discrimination. However, in recent years European states have embraced practices that permit discrimination against and unequal treatment of asylum-seekers, and recent British government proposals threaten the 1951 Convention itself. Schuster interrogates some of the underlying assumptions of asylum policies in the United Kingdom in particular, but also with reference to other European states, arguing that common-sense assertions of the ‘need for control’, which underlie the differential treatment of asylum-seekers in particular, are expressions of a racism at the heart of European states. She further argues that, at the border, racism intersects in a complex and shifting way with class and gender, creating a hierarchy of the excluded. Following a discussion of racism and these other modalities of exclusion, Schuster examines practices through which this racism is articulated.