Ukrainian Refugees in Europe

Last week's official count from the UN Refugee Agency has 4.9 million as the number of Ukrainian refugees in EU countries registered for "national protection" (mostly presumably under the legal category of "displaced persons").¹

Refugees as political hate slogan

In 2015, 1.1 million refugees came into the EU, mostly as the result of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Syrian civil war with interventions from the US, Russia, and Türkiye.

That 2015 experience was called then and is still remembered as a horrifying Refugee Crisis. But so far, after receiving basically five times as many refugees as in 2015, there isn't yet anything like the political freakout in the EU that there was in 2015 and immediately following. (The 4.9 million estimate is a conservative one, probably very conservative.)

One obvious implication of this is that the xenophobic nonsense we've heard for the last eight years or so about the "flood" of refugees back then (refugees sound scarier when you use natural-disaster metaphors to describe them) was to a large extent only, well, xenophobic nonsense. And, just maybe, the EU leaders learned something positive from the recent past. Maybe.

It's not that xenophobic politics have gone away. The far-right parties have been pimping that for so long that they can't give it up. The conservative parties still tend to fall all over themselves trying to show they are as anti-refugee as the far right. And even some left and left-center parties even dabble in it, not at all to their credit.

But right now none of them seem to be targeting the Ukrainian refugees as such. The far-right has spent decades demonizing immigrants and refugees from Muslim and African countries, and they mostly seem to be sticking to those Golden Oldie slogans for now. I'm guessing that part of it is that a number of the far-right parties are more-or-less blatantly Putinist (Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Germany). And that may have to do with Russia not banging that particular propaganda drum a whole lot yet.

But the far-right has anti-Ukrainian-refugee themes in their hopper. I occasionally hold my nose and check some of the rancid websites and publications where such things get a trial run, so I see some of the themes they are likely to push when they are ready.

The 4.9 million number for Ukrainian refugees in the EU is almost certainly an undercount, because while some of those registered may have gone back to Ukraine, there are probably at least as many who are in the EU but not officially registered. The UN is also showing as many as 2.9 million in Russia and over 5 million internally displaced inside Ukraine.

Ukraine's total population at the start of last year's war was 45 million. That means over a quarter of the country's population is displaced. Even if the war ends immediately - a very unlikely event - a lot of the external refugees will not go back to Ukraine any time soon. And the country's economy will be so badly damaged that Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO will be years, even decades, away under the current standards for those alliances.

One of the most important sources of foreign assistance for reconstruction will be Ukrainian refugees transferring money to their families at home.

Real issues around real-world immigration

In this German-language Spiegel panel discussion,² a lot of the standard arguments about refugees are repeated. Politicians and activists who want a serious, practical approach to refugee and immigration issues try to argue with facts and with the official values recognized by the EU. Those who want to sound to some degree anti-refugee highlight specific problems they hold up as symbolic but to try resist addressing the larger implications of their positions.

Standard anti-refugee arguments include: they are not real refugees but economic migrants; our country (whichever one it is) is overburdened; ordinary people (vaguely defined) are concerned and force us elected representative to take anti-refugee measures; not all the immigrants are “good” immigrants - they don’t learn German ()or French or Swedish) quickly enough and don’t assimilate/integrate to their new countries well enough.

Europeans who are serious about the EU and their own countries handling refugee problems responsibly and within their own national and international legal obligations emphasize the need to be prepared for immigration emergencies and to provide adequate education and job training to enable rapid “integration.”

The more xenophobic varieties stress “cultural” problems (they aren’t white, or at least not white enough), religion (“Muslims want to kill us all in our beds”), crime risks (though crime rates among immigrant and refugee communities tend to be less than the “native” ones), and general petty nationalistic themes.

Legitimate security concerns about Islamic terrorism, or the recruitment of young immigrants as drug dealers, or Ukrainian crime gangs (a stable of German-language cop shows!) are best addressed by rapid integration (including education and the opportunity to work) and winning the broadest possible trust among the given immigrant population.

One of the real problems of real-world handling of refugees is striking a reasonable balance between official assistance for the refugees and help from civil society groups including many volunteers. In sudden surges of refugees, volunteer assistance and charity will always be necessary. But the process needs to be directed by governments and in a responsible way that conforms to national and international law. Many people in EU countries, for instance, offered to house Ukrainian refugees last year immediately after the Russian invasion. And that’s a great thing.

However, those offers also need to be officially vetted and monitored. Because there are lots of ways that people offering seemingly generous help for refugees can run anything-but-generous scams and abuses. A hotel, for instance, can offer to house refugees in rooms but then demand unofficially that they work for free or at very low pay for the hotel at the same time. Particularly when it comes to unaccompanied minors or families bringing young children, effective and honest government oversight is a necessary thing.

But real problems can never be addressed as long as the dominant terms of the public debate turn around treating refugees as a security and public-safety problem in the first instance, or staying focused on vague “cultural” issues or vague nationalistic whining about which country should be bearing what burdens.

I heard the Austrian migration expert Judith Kohlenberger comment on TV recently that the public discussion on immigration in Austria often seems almost completely disconnected from the realities of actual refugee and immigration issues. She’s right about that.

Much of the discussion may be driven by fear, bigotry, and gullibility. But conducting realistic policy does have to take account of facts at some level.

And it will require political leaders and parties who actually do want a sensible, realistic, and legal refugee policy to directly confront the misdirection, false claims, and fear-mongering from the xenophobic parties and groups.

This German-language Deutsche Welle discussion³ featuring the leading migration expert Gerald Knaus covers some examples of the impractical approaches and frankly sadistic policy ideas openly discussed among some Europeans still directed against non-Ukrainian refugees (which Knaus himself does not support):

English version⁴:

1. Operational Data Portal-Ukraine Refugee Situation. UNHCR-UN Refugee Agency website. <https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine> (Accessed: 2023-16-03).

2. SPIEGEL-Talk zu Flüchtlingen: »Das ist Rassismus« – »Nein, das ist kein Rassismus«. Spiegel YouTube channel 15.03.2023. (Accessed: 2023-16-03).

3. Flucht und Migration nach Europa: Einwanderung steuern, wie geht das? | Auf den Punkt. DW Deutsch YouTube channel 16.03.2023. (Accessed: 2023-16-03).

4. Destination Europe: Can Migration be Controlled? | To The Point, DW News YouTube channel 16.03.2023. (Accessed: 2023-16-03).