The readings and our class discussion brought about many questions about human rights. In a development studies class I took, we discussed what type of “human” is guaranteed these rights as often, as in the examples brought out in the texts, human rights are reserved for a certain individual. Moreover, these rights are hard to enforce and often utopian ideals agreed motivated by politics. It seems that a simple document, stating refugee status, determines whether or not you deserve these rights. And sometimes, like in Alphonse’s case, legal documents cannot combat discrimination.

The distribution of refugees or asylum seeking individuals is often debated globally, but especially in the EU. The idea of creating a systematic method to which country will accept who and how many is all dependent on the fact that the countries are even willing to accept these populations. How often is the “other” welcomed with open arms by those in a position of power? Often, ethnocentricism, power, and prejudice hinder any acceptance.  The system itself perpetuates discrimination as before “acceptance” is given, migrants must be judged on how “deserving” they are. The lack of qualification of the interviewer, the amount of time given, and the basis on which migrants are judged are proof that the system sets up these asylum seeking individuals up for failure.

“Instead of benefiting from a thorough examination of their situation, as would be the case before national institutions in charge of asylum, applicants will have their fate decided by a fast-track process, making the provision of evidence for their claims difficult and ultimately diminishing their chances of being admitted while denying the possibility of appeal.”

Even those who are accepted, are accepted for political reasons the article suggests; the reality is the nations that caused certain motivations for migration in the past are rejecting those that seek their help in the present.