Introduction
Cyprus is taking a big step to further tighten its immigration policies by withdrawing protection status for migrants involved in serious crimes. The cabinet has thrown its weight behind this bold initiative, in order to protect national security and maintain control of its immigration system. But the policy has been sharply criticised by international organisations, human rights advocates. And what are the reasons behind this decision, what implications could it have for Cyprus’s place in the global migration tableau?
The rationale behind the policy shift
The central tenet of this new policy is attempting to address public alarm over rising levels of criminality while still keeping Cyprus on track regarding safety. ‘Deputy Minister of Migration and International Protection Nicholas Ioannides pointed out that the hospitality shown to migrants goes with an obligation of respect of local laws’. Those who are abusing their privileges, mostly for committing crimes, should now no longer take advantage of the country’s immigration framework, the government argues.
The subtle exception is this policy, which specifically targets people with “subsidiary protection” status. Whereas full refugee status is granted to those facing risks back home whose lives would be under threat if they were denied safe haven, subsidiary protection is given to those who would suffer risks back home, but do not meet the stringent criteria of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. By revoking this protection for serious offenders, Cyprus aims to send a clear message: safety is a privilege, and with that comes the responsibility to be an abiding by the law.
Challenges in implementing repatriation
Intent is clear with the policy but execution is complicated. The main issue is the way repatriating migrants to places like Syria is almost impossible and it’s somewhere where ongoing conflict and the human rights violations make return unsafe. The violation of international humanitarian laws and even a possibility of legal and moral backlash from Cyprus would be caused if it sent there individuals.
Crisis in Cyprus sees the country negotiating agreements with third countries to rehome migrants deemed unfit to stay in the island. Details of these discussions have hinted progress, as Ioannides noted, and soon they will be public. Agreements along these lines could provide a means of not breaking international law while addressing at home concerns about public safety.
The backlash: Human rights concerns
Critics — including the United Nations and humanitarian organisations — have been very focused on the policy. Rage against Obama as bad as it was, the UN has documented grave abuses against Syrian refugees returning to their home country: torture, sexual violence, forced disappearances. But critics say the Cyprus move is dangerous because it sets a precedent that could harm protection of refugees on a global level—other countries could follow suit.
It also had been accused by Cyprus of attempting to send asylum seekers back into the United Nations buffer zone, something the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has condemned. Critics say such actions override the purpose of international asylum laws, which are meant to protect the most vulnerable.
Public opinion and political implications
But the policy has enjoyed domestic support among those who argue that Cyprus is under undue pressure from its location. Being located at crossroads of Europe, the Middle and Africa, Cyprus has become the key entry for migrants who aspire to live a better life. Frustration at the island nation’s limited resources and its ability to process asylum claims have helped the government’s hard line on crime among migrants as a politically expedient stance.
But opposition parties and advocacy groups warn the policy could alienate communities that have played a positive role in Cypriot society. This said that focusing only on the criminal actions of the majority of migrants would only perpetuate stereotypes and may hinder integration efforts.
Balancing security with humanity
At the centre of the debate is how Cyprus can find the right balance of its responsibilities to protect its citizens and its moral and legal obligations to protect those in need of protection because of the danger they are facing. This is no easy task when it comes to striking this balance. While revoking protection for criminal migrants is a part of an increasingly common European policy on dealing with similar problems, the precedent it establishes is concerning.
The stakes are high for Cyprus. The country is a member of the European Union, restricted by international treaties and human rights conventions. Any suggestion of its overreach could damage its reputation on the global stage and bring European scrutiny.
Looking ahead
The long range effects of this policy are unclear. While it will address immediate concerns over public safety, and signal a powerful deterrent to those who break the law, it could further strain relations between Cyprus and organisations around the world. Also, the success or failure of this policy will depend largely on the effectiveness of relocation agreements with third countries.
One thing is clear: At a crossroads in immigration policy, Cyprus faces a difficult choice. The island nation’s decisions will guide, or possibly caution, other nations facing similar dilemmas in balancing national security and its humanitarian responsibilities.
