Reading For African Asylum-Seekers, A Treacherous Journey is Only the Beginning, I’m filled with immense frustration that I know I can only begin to understand. It outlines the story and background of a young man named Alphonse Ngiaba from the Democratic Republic of the Congo as it delves into the difficult and frankly unethical procedures the young men like him are faced with. After years of attempting to cross in the EU and finally succeeding, and eventually having his denied application reviewed, Alphonse was wrongfully sent back to his country of origin, an action that most likely will never be rectified.

From the start, the journey to the EU is a difficult and dangerous one. Many are beaten and others do not survive. Going beyond that, narrowing in the individuals that miraculously make it to the land that they dream of, it finally sets in that one interview determines whether or not the years of hard work leading up to that moment are worth anything. Still, the most eye opening aspect of this interview is that the people hired to conduct them have minimal training and have the power to let their biases flow free during the short thirty minute conversation. People who barely have to meet certain qualifications determine the future of asylum seekers and their families. Understandably, I want to ask if there is anything that can be done to improve qualifications or the interview process, but other protocols easily answer my question.

The Hots Spots, or receiving centers set up for refugees coming from Africa, the Middle East and Asia have more insidious intentions, with regards to their handling of applicants and their motivation. The goal is to reject as many refugees as possible because they are paid by EU countries to do so, as an attempt to prevent people from legally getting into country borders. It goes without saying how wrong this is but it continues, just as wrongful deportation even with proper documentation, in the case of Alphonse, continues to occur. I then ask who is watching over these receiving centers? Is there any possibility of additional checks and balances? Because at this point these centers and countries have a monopoly on the decision making process for millions of vulnerable people, people who do not have a place to call home.