Persons with disabilities make up around 15 % of the global population, and comprise a significant minority of refugees and migrants. The same applies for Bulgaria. Statistically to look, lots of refugees and migrants have fled their home countries due to the continuous conflicts with civil wars that never ceased to stop. Most of them have fled from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and some countries from North Africa. One can speculate that around 3.5 to 5 million of those who are displaced are displaced becoming into refugees/migrants. All those that have become displaced/refugees/migrants often experience to have a forced migration and most of them that are disabled have experienced a migratory journey with poverty transitioning, stripped of family/support and survival being compromised due to environmental and structural factors. Even though, some of them are unable to flee leaving behind in their home country due to the difficulty to make movements without having any support/assistance.
Despite the scale of forced human movement regarding of their disability, the camps for all refugees/migrants especially was not at all equipped to provide the necessary needs for health care, educational purposes and so on. Witnessing to see the whole picture, it is related to the facts that many usually have issues faced with discriminations. The disabled refugees/migrants normally hide in their rooms and never show up to use the services provided at the camps due to the shame a single family feels. Being ashamed of the disability should never be presented because showing the person’s disability is to portray the real identity related with the culture. Being disabled is a true identity and that’s the beauty of it! No pity should be attached for it.
Cultures, the refugees/migrants that possess coming from Afghanistan normally experience a total transition with shock due to the lack of education and the lack of basic understanding to have regarding of what it means to have the right to health care, educational formality to study and understanding the concept of disability rights. The issues are tantamount and all have difficulties to project in knowing where they are as Bulgaria is not yet like the West of Europe. The country is not yet open to diversity and inclusion to have despite of different nationalities, cultures and religions. Discrimination and deprivation of rights are the obstacles they constantly have faced including the disabled. All displaced people including the refugees and migrants have shown to experience fear, untold tragedies, violence, death and all have shown signs of Post-Traumatic Disorder (PSTD). Most have arrived in Bulgaria are under 18 years old and traveled all by themselves without parents being presented. The camps in the capital of Sofia lack to provide the psychological therapies to the migrants due to the lack of professional psychologists.
Even though, Bulgaria has signed to some aspects accordingly to provide to the migrants asylum but it has not ratified officially the UN Convention on Migrants’ Rights. The situation is pretty much political. Regarding of human rights framework and to the international law, it is laid down with obligations which all States are bound to respect all citizens within the State’s jurisdiction. This means that all migrants, regardless of their status, are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. It also applies for all migrants under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The country which I speak here about should start to implement the UN Convention on Migrants’ Rights into their local stature and start respecting the cores stated about migrants’ rights especially for the disabled displaced/refugees and migrants. All deserve to have equal respect with equal treatment and protections being provided.
The search for safety, dignity and a better life is the main reason due to which people are leaving their homes as their countries are affected with persecution, extreme poverty, conflicts and climate change. More than 1 million refugees and migrants have arrived in the European Union, the large majority of them fleeing from war and terror in Syria and other troubled countries. Thousands of persons have died attempting to reach the EU. Almost 90% of the refugees and migrants have paid organized criminals and smugglers to get them across borders. It is even that Europe has received more legal immigrants than the US. The migration issue has surfaced to portray significant repercussions for European governments and the EU. Europe has systematically tried to impose a system of deterrence that closes borders and outsources border control to neighboring countries. However, Europe’s approach has failed to adequately support people who have arrived onto the European shores and help them provide human dignity. Since 2015, Germany and Sweden along with other Western countries have realized the European solidarity in accepting more refugees than the rest of EU combined. It is to this point that countries in Central and Eastern European are particularly vocal opponents, fearing that the newly arrived migrants and refugees, many of whom are Muslim, could alter the primarily Christian identities of their countries and of Europe. Should Europe start detaining the asylum and vulnerable seekers and refuges when trying to impose border restrictions within the EU’s frontier regions such as Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Spain? Within the European Union, the agenda on the migration issue among the leaders has created deep division involving with populist movements due to taking advantage of the fears and tensions stirred up by this phenomenon. European leaders believe that enhancing even further the border control would help regain with success the control as the flow of migrants to drop dramatically. It is clear that Germany, Sweden and other Western countries are the hotspots for migrants and refugees to seek a new life with good resettlement, but these countries start to feel worn out in providing assistance to them while the Eastern European countries clearly do not provide any of these to them. The anxieties regarding of their fear and tensions, Europe should be open to refugees and migrants to integrate freely into the European culture and societies. It is true that Europe needs immigration as an injection of youth and dynamism as it helps to provide input for economic growth and help to offset unfavorable demographic development (such as aging populations and shrinking workforces). My point is that Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Bosna and Herzegovina, Serbia and others should be involved in accepting and helping to provide resettlement with asylum to all refugees and migrants. It is all about having to involve a balance within all European member states and helping each other to cope in regaining the migration pressure under control. A fundamental change is needed in the EU’s approach to migration – one that respects international law and human rights, expands safe and regular routes for people to travel to Europe, implements fair, transparent and efficient asylum procedures, and ensures development aid is used for reducing poverty and inequality, not for reducing mobility. To my point, I reiterate of abiding by the principle that people must not be sent back to countries where they may face torture, prosecution or threats to their life. It is important for the European Union to commit with political will in building a single asylum and migration system that establishes safe and legal means of migration.
Donald Trump is democratically elected president and the United States is a democracy. But the experts, lawyers and scholars caution that the revised immigration ban imposed by the current president in the US shows xenophobic policy towards Muslim and it is blatantly discriminatory. He has effectively shut America’s door to anyone- including refugees from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. These six countries have two main things in common: they are predominantly Muslim, and many of their citizens are trying to seek asylum abroad to escape serious human rights violations like persecution, indiscriminate bombing, and torture. Does Donald Trump’s Immigration ban breach international law? This ban definitely is illegal and “mean spirited”. The experts question the point that the more this law is going to attempt to increase deportation, then the greater the extent of profiling is going to be. Clearly, Trump’s order appears to pose violation accordingly to the several international treaties ratified by the US as well as some provisions of which have been incorporated into the US law and is cited as binding by the US Supreme Court. Every country as is stated accordingly to the Status of Refugees and other international human rights law that it has the obligation to protect refugees against abuses and those facing persecution. So, to this point, it is required as is stated in the UN Refugee Convention that the US provide protection and safe haven to those that face persecution. Accordingly to the news published in the New York Times, it is said that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated about 20, 000 refugees from all over the world would be definitely affected immediately by this ban. My point is that the long-standing U.S. policy of welcoming refugees has generally created win-win situation in which it has saved the lives of the most vulnerable people in the world and have turn enriched and strengthened their new societies with better lifestyle having good job, educational and health care access. It provided positive outcome and otherwise it is proven to show that illegal or legal immigration truly bring real benefits to the supply side of the Americans. Many economists and lawmakers agree that immigration definitely is beneficial and brings good results for the economy as well as it is the source of labor-force growth. Removing the 7 million unauthorized workers or illegal immigrants would reduce the employment as stated in an article as it is to be by an amount similar to that experienced during the Great Recession. The US being as democratically representative country, it should therefore respect the international law as well as the US law about immigration and refugee status and continue welcoming people from other countries and share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression. We need to challenge everything that represents in this immigration ban.
The inconvenient truth about the greening of human rights
Often said among the scholars, experts and academics that environmental issue is human rights and there is interlinked relationship leading to have an issue with vigorous debate. The connection between human rights and the environment are critically important, but are often poorly understood. Why should environmental protection be treated as a human rights issue? Would the Paris agreement be enough? The environmental issues parallel brings plenty of social, economic and individual problems. Increasing environmental pollution threatens fundamental human rights and freedoms including the right to life. That is why the environmental issues are not only the environmental pollutions but also a threat to the basic human rights which are protected by constitution and international agreements.
There is one who said an important lesson in my life. My grandfather values the meaning of life related with the environment. He once mentioned that we all living on this Earth need to learn how to preserve the nature and the resources provided for life which is the paper, water and food. Being a kid I could not understand the whole point when I overly had consumed the toilet paper filling up to the top of whole toilet. My grandfather has shouted at me giving me the point how important is the preservation of our planet Earth that provide the essential support of life for the humanity. Years go by and I started to learn the importance of our life for this planet Earth.
Accordingly to this point, I would say as Bismarck would quote “politics is not an exact science”. We need an action with a care to preserve the environment and start protecting the human rights. Otherwise, this is where the realism comes in saying many people will have to adapt to a hotter Earth and some of them will need help. The fact is that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable people, especially in countries with limited resources and fragile ecosystems. It also damages food supplies, spreading disease and creating refugees, and it is poised to become the most massive human rights violation the world has ever seen. We need to consider thinking about the vulnerable poor countries that experience drought, disasters, and heavy heat leaving them no food left to farm with, diseases and migration to big cities and other countries. We need to face the present reality and act upon it.
The good news is that we have created officially the so called document “Paris climate agreement”. I wonder when asking myself a question about this matter wondering whether it would be enough to save our planet from climate change. No one can say for sure. The Paris climate agreement, by contrast is sufficiently loose in its structure and modest in its aims to be able to withstand the countries with biggest carbon emitter. All 195 countries signed to this accord agreed therein to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere so as to limit dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the maximum rise of 2C was established as the goal of international climate policy. The best is to set a strong policy that would help to sustain the environment which is the carbon tax. Would it be sufficient to prevent further climate damage? A stronger policy and a powerful law is always the best tool to have set for governments, companies and institutions that regulate greenhouse gases. A scholar said “a human rights perspective on climate change essentially serves to reinforce political pressure coming from the more vulnerable developing state”. On the view set out here, I argue that climate change is regarded in international law as a common concern of humanity, and thus as an issue in respect of which all states have the legitimate concern.