A CRAMPED boat with nearly 400 Rohingya refugees rocks over turbulent waters; after weeks at sea, they were turned back at Malaysian borders as docks shut down in face of the pandemic. A family waits for months, along with hundreds of other families, in makeshift shelters in Mexico as they await their asylum trial in the United States. They hear rumors of heightened asylum qualifications, of closing borders, and an infection in another camp, but all they can do is to hope that the virus won’t reach them. These are only some of the many stories presented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Although COVID-19 shook everyone’s lives, the virus dealt a more devastating blow for the already-vulnerable population that struggle on the fringes of society: the refugees.

Current situation of refugees

   Individuals displaced by war, natural disasters, or unlawful persecution have always been in vulnerable positions even before COVID-19. According to the UNHCR, more than 79 million people were “forcibly displaced” by the end of 2019, with 4.2 million people categorized as “stateless.” The UNHCR also noted that 85% of refugees resided in developing countries, with Turkey hosting the greatest number of refugees followed by Colombia, Pakistan, and Uganda. Often times, these hosting countries lack enough resources to accommodate the growing surge of displaced people. Many asylum seekers can’t even get into official camps that are already full, forcing them to live in unofficial settlements around the border. This not only makes it difficult to keep track of the accurate refugee population but also makes providing aid more challenging. Most refugees live beneath the poverty line as they struggle to get a safe job to support themselves and their families, often without legal protection.

Forgotten in a pandemic

   The substandard living conditions that many refugees are situated in puts them at a higher risk of the virus. For instance, the Kutupalong camp in Bangladesh has about one million Rohingya refugees crowded in camps. The residents share washing facilities and toilets, the flimsy settlements are packed tightly alongside each other, and they often lack access to safety measures like hand sanitizers, masks, or even clean water*. Refugees’ ambiguous legal status also puts up more barriers to receiving government protection. Many are undocumented or are awaiting asylum approval, which excludes them from public healthcare or “systematic screening” that is essential for keeping COVID-19 infections under control**. As a result, the Rohingya refugee camp saw 57 infections and 5 deaths due to COVID-19 by July***. In densely populated, underrepresented, and often unhygienic circumstances, the refugee population is extremely susceptible to a mass outbreak.

   The ramifications of the economic downfall also hit displaced populations hard. Financial difficulties only worsened as general employment decreased in the COVID-19 economy, compromising basic survival and increasing the refugees’ dependence on humanitarian aid or dangerous jobs****. Although many countries implemented “safety nets” in the crisis, such as Colombia’s wage subsidies or Kenya’s cash assistance, many programs excluded the refugee population. The UNHCR reported that many social security networks were based on existing structures of welfare that provided assistance to citizens only, automatically excluding many displaced people. Technical obstacles like language barriers or identification difficulties also made it more difficult for refugees to access available resources.

Border politics and COVID-19

   The disproportionate damage and danger refugees suffer in their unique situation were only worsened by the international trend of tightening border policies and limiting population movement. A Pew Research Center article in April showed that 91% of nations worldwide implemented restrictions on entry due to COVID-19, with 39% of countries’ borders completely shut down for nonresidents or noncitizens. In May, out of the 161 countries that had closed their borders, 97 nations even shut out asylum seekers*****. For example, Italy announced in April that they wouldn’t allow refugee boats to dock on their ports until July 31 as the ports weren’t safe******. Many refugee facilities were heavily restrained, such as the case of the Greek government confining migrants and refugees on Aegean island camps and stopping them from coming to mainland*******. The heightened border closure and travel bans not only made it more difficult for refugees to enter safer countries, but it also stopped them from moving to safer spaces within the country or even returning home. This ended up effectively stranding them in a state of limbo where there’s a high risk of running out of money or legal visas, putting them in more vulnerable situations.

   While restrictions on movement in and out of the country during a pandemic are necessary to an extent, some have been accused of using the pandemic to push anti-migration policies. Some European countries’ refusal of sanctuary, such as Austria raising asylum qualifications by asking for specific certificates******** or Italy and Malta simply refusing refugee boats to dock, were some of the targets of criticism*********. The most famous and drastic example is the United States. In March, the Trump administration issued an order that can expel migrants without allowing them to seek for asylum, turning away about 20,000 people at the U.S.-Mexico border, including children**********. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) justified it as protecting public health, this breached the “non-refoulement” obligation of an international convention. The UNHCR’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees clarifies that no country can send away refugees back to their country if it’s a place of danger. Many health experts in the United States echoed this sentiment in a letter sent to the CDC. The letter stated that “public health laws should not be used as a pretext for overriding humanitarian laws” and pointed out that the new border control focused on a specific demographic of “noncitizens” while not regulating citizens’ travels which are more dangerous than refugees’ entry***********. This policy, followed by heightened asylum qualification standards and refusing entry of Central American asylum seekers************, led many to criticize the U.S. government for refusing humanitarian obligations. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused the administration of using COVID-19 as an excuse to enforce their anti-immigration agenda. However, the U.S. government cited reasons such as the need to protect the American economy and public health by stopping potential infections at the border—compatible with President Trump’s slogan “America First.” The balance between protecting “their people” inside the border and providing sanctuary for one of the most endangered populations in the world proves to be an ongoing point of contention.

*                 *                 *

   Amidst the chaos of the pandemic, refugees without state representation or protection were pushed under the proverbial rug. Forgotten, excluded, sometimes feared or blamed for the spread of the virus, displaced populations are more vulnerable than ever now as many countries turn their backs on them. The refugee crisis is an ongoing emergency that’s no less urgent than the pandemic situation. The world should acknowledge refugees’ continuing struggles of survival against both the virus and the closing borders.

*Business Insider

**International Organization for Migration

***Forbes

****OECD

*****UNHCR

******Aljazeera

*******Human Rights Watch

********European Council on Refugees and Exiles

*********The Conversation

**********UNHCR

***********Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health

************The New York Times