Protest held in the beginning of June against the family separation policy, currently being put forward by the US government (Photo credit: ACLU)

What does the “zero-tolerance” policy for people crossing the southland border in the U.S. have to do with refugee women seeking economic and psychosocial support in Hashemi Shamali, a low-income neighborhood in the eastern part of Amman?

Between words like refugee, asylum seeker, economic migrant, legal, illegal, border, control, security, much of what is fundamental – preserving human dignity – is lost. And I cannot help but feel a deep connection between the horrifying scenes and reports we have been flooded for the past month, of children being ripped off the arms of parents who dared to flee violence and lack of opportunity, and the suspended lives of the refugees living in Amman.

They are both products of an ever-growing insecurity climate for the vulnerable and an increasingly closed down world to the ones that need the most.

Evidence for this emerges pretty much everywhere. We can see it in the impacts of the Plan Frontera Sur in Mexico, commissioned still by former US president, Barack Obama, and its outsourcing of repression and violence. More blatantly, during the past year and a half, between the “Muslim Ban” and the deep cut in the numbers over refugee acceptance, the US effectively redrafted its refugee reception policy which reached never seen before lows ever since the country took resettlement as a matter of strategic importance, since World War II.

Even in my home country, Brazil, usually hailed as welcoming and open, signs of closure have started to emerge in daily discourse. In 2017, a comprehensive new immigration law, drafted by specialists and scholars and which substituted the antiquate rules on the theme that were created during the military dictatorship was hailed as one of the most comprehensive, progressive reforms on the issue in the world. However, once it reached the Executive, the document had a series of its innovations vetoed, on the grounds of national security. Even before, when facing the influx of Haitians, coming from a country wrecked to shreds by the earthquake in 2010, few, but growing, voices against their presence arose. The same occurs now, as the continuous crisis in Venezuela prompts immigrant influxes on the northern part of the country, and renewed calls for the closure of the borders occur. As if this was possible. As if this was acceptable.

In global governance fora, the ways in which both the refugee and migrant discussion is occurring, today essentially in the spaces of the Global Compacts on each theme, also prompts worry. More specifically, on the issue of how the member States show an extreme preoccupation with a “strengthened focus on addressing root causes and planning for solutions, including voluntary repatriation and resettlement, from the onset of emergencies”– meaning doing everything that can be done to prevent people from leaving their country.

I am often confronted by views that make a point in separating migration policy from refugee policy. There is a well-founded reason for that, as legal norms for both groups are based on different assumptions. But, is there a hardship ruler, a scale, a maker to determine what type of suffering and need is more acceptable than others? What separates Alan Kurdi from the wailing 6-year old Salvadorian girl, pleading for her mother and aunt? Maybe a land border instead of the Aegean Sea? Mind you, I am not advocating (at least, not at this point) for the disbandment of those categories, the migrant and the refugee, but for more critical reflection upon what is the basis in which they are set.

Because those categories are fundamentally political ones, handled and argued for depending on a particular intention. That is, who then gets to be a refugee? Who gets then to be a migrant? And who gets to be the “expat”? Ultimately, if movement is a privilege, it is less and less attainable for those whose life depends on it.

There is much work to be done.

Today, as it is World Refugee Day, Global Giving is matching donations up to $2,500 for refugee-related projects. The Advocacy Project currently holds a campaign for the Hope Workshop, which serves as a basic income source for women refugees in Amman and is where I am working this summer. Any donation is much appreciated. You can find the ongoing campaign here.

And – should you have any other funds to spare, please also consider making a donation to legal rights groups which work with immigrant children cases in the US, like the ACLU. They are needed more than ever.