February 17, 2026 • 31 mins
On Inside Geneva this week, we unpick the divisive topic of migration and asylum. Why are some countries closing their doors?
“In Europe we are seeing one country after another erect barbed wire around their country and around a continent,” says Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council.
When does restricting immigration turn into human rights violation?
“We believe it’s within the rights of any government to set immigration policies that they believe make sense for their country and electorate. But setting lawful immigration policies does not mean that you have the right to mistreat migrants,” says Philippe Bolopion, executive director at Human Rights Watch.
Is immigration really a threat to our jobs or services?
“Overall, most studies are clear that migrant workers are not in competition with national workers in the labour market. [...] In Western countries, the medical sector depends on migrant workers,” says Vincent Chetail from the Global Migration Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute.
Why are some of us so angry about immigration?
“We are reaching a peak in violent anti‑migrant rhetoric, which has nothing to do with reality,” continues Chetail.
Many countries are cutting foreign aid and limiting immigration. A recipe for disaster?
“If you want to live in a stable world without uncontrolled migration, pandemics and insecurity, then you invest in hope for people who have been displaced,” says Egeland.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva for the full interview.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_03 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_02 (00:22):
We've been dealing with the refugee situation for
10 years.
At some point, that's enough.
SPEAKER_10 (00:26):
There's a new battle on the streets of Britain,
fought with flags and calls fordeportations and fear-mongering
about immigrants.
SPEAKER_11 (00:34):
In Europe, we're rather seeing one country after
the other erecting barbed wirearound their country and around
our continent.
SPEAKER_00 (00:46):
They're pouring into our country.
Nobody's even looking at them.
They just come in.
The crime is going to betremendous.
The terrorism is going to be.
SPEAKER_06 (00:54):
We believe it's within the rights of any
government to set immigrationpolicies that they believe make
sense for their country andtheir electorate.
But setting lawful immigrationpolicies does not mean that you
have the right to mistreatmigrants.
SPEAKER_12 (01:41):
We are reaching a peak in terms of violent
anti-migrant rhetoric, which hasnothing to do with the reality.
SPEAKER_03 (01:55):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
How shall I describe it?
Tricky, challenging, divisive,polarized debate around
immigration.
It seems to dominate ourpolitical discourse.
Other challenges like climatechange, even conflict, have been
(02:18):
pushed down the agenda.
So why have we become soconcerned about this issue?
What are the facts and figuresbehind the political rhetoric?
That's what we're going to talkabout in this episode.
And we're going to start with aconversation I had recently with
Jan Eglund, Secretary General ofthe Norwegian Refugee Council,
(02:40):
who told me he was dismayed bythe tone of the debate in Europe
and by what he sees as a lack ofsupport for refugees.
SPEAKER_11 (02:49):
I think we are seeing a race to the bottom.
I had hoped we would be muchbetter off in Europe.
We're rather seeing one countryafter the other erecting barbed
wire around their country andaround our continent.
And it's in contradiction withthe uh Geneva Convention of
(03:12):
1951, which was made by and forEuropean refugees at the time.
How come we're then thecontinent putting that
convention to its grave justbecause we are not refugees
anymore?
SPEAKER_03 (03:27):
Do you think it's that?
Or because some people say that,you know, that was created in
the wake of the Second World WarConvention, and that really is
not suited to the situations wehave today when people are much
more mobile, there's moreconflict.
SPEAKER_11 (03:43):
There were millions and millions of refugees in
Europe at the time.
I mean, the Second World War washorrific.
Tens of millions were displacedaltogether.
In our time and age, alsomillions are displaced.
The point is that we're muchricher now.
We're more nationalistic, we'remore inward-looking, we're more
(04:05):
xenophobic as Europeans andNorth Americans.
We became so rich, we're notwilling anymore to share
protection in our countries.
It's a battle of values, andwe're losing this battle of
values at the moment, so we haveto fight harder for the people
(04:25):
who are desperately seekingprotection.
SPEAKER_03 (04:28):
But the thing is, you know, people don't feel
richer in Europe.
They feel challenged.
My own country.
It's a common refrain.
I can't get a house.
I can't get a doctor'sappointment.
And they're blaming, rightly orwrongly, immigration and asylum
and possibly mixing the twothings up.
SPEAKER_11 (04:48):
Yeah, I I disagree that it is these refugees that
is the cause to many of theproblems of an aging Europe, a
Europe that is not producing aswe should, has not been as
innovative as we should, is noteducating the young generations
as well as we should.
(05:08):
And that's the uh the fault ofthe refugees or the asylum
seekers.
No, it's not.
Actually, it will be a problemfor Europe, an aging Europe, if
we do not have people comingfrom outside.
SPEAKER_03 (05:22):
I met a very senior diplomat in Geneva who was
justifying their government'squite savage cuts in foreign
aid, who said, we've beenspending this money for decades
and what has it improved?
Absolutely nothing.
SPEAKER_11 (05:38):
I also hear that for from some now.
What's the interest of Europe tohelp in Africa and in Sudan and
elsewhere?
Why should we care?
Because it's in harmony with ourideals and our interests.
If you want to live in a stableworld without uncontrolled
(05:58):
migration, pandemics, wars, andinsecurity, you invest in hope
for people who have beendisplaced.
It's it's a simple equation,really.
Millions are people displaced byviolence.
They need to have hope.
If not, we will learn to regretit in Europe because they will
(06:19):
want to move, and there willalso be instability very close
to a continent.
SPEAKER_03 (06:25):
Just to come back to what you were saying earlier,
you said we've become moreinward-looking and more
nationalistic and xenophobic.
Why do you think that is?
SPEAKER_11 (06:38):
I think uh number one, we've not been good enough
explaining how often we succeed.
I mean, again, in Syria, I'vebeen to places where people
returned from after 12 years ofdisplacement, and the school
that my organization, NorwegianRefugee Council, helped rebuild,
(06:59):
the children were singing uh injubilant of having returned to
their ancestors' land, and wewere helping people rebuild
their homes.
But those kind of successstories were not getting to the
taxpayers who believe it oftenis a hopeless case, and then we
(07:20):
forget that if there'sinstability in the world and no
hope for hundreds of millions ofpeople elsewhere, it will come
to haunt us as a continent.
We need to go from this race tothe bottom.
Of course we have to re receivepeople as we've done now for
generations.
(07:41):
If they seek protection, if theydon't need protection, of course
they can be returned.
We cannot end Europeancivilization and solidarity like
this.
How come we are putting theRefugee Convention and the right
of asylum to its grave?
It is contrary to what webelieve in as European
(08:03):
civilization.
SPEAKER_03 (08:04):
So dismay about what's happening in Europe from
Yan Eglund, meanwhile, events inthe United States are causing
alarm among human rights groups.
SPEAKER_04 (08:19):
The U.S.
has sent hundreds of mostlyVenezuelan migrants to be held
without trial at this megaprison in El Salvador.
SPEAKER_03 (08:27):
The roundups by immigration control forces or
ICE, and in January, theshooting of protesters were
shocking to many.
SPEAKER_02 (08:40):
More than technically managed to be
agents, humbling people, one ofour constituents, shooting the
deputy.
SPEAKER_04 (08:50):
Mourners left tributes on a frozen snowbank,
the site where Alex Predi wasshot and killed by federal
agents, and the world needs torespond to this.
SPEAKER_08 (08:59):
We are fighting for our democracy in our country.
SPEAKER_03 (09:01):
Philippe Bolapion is executive director of Human
Rights Watch.
He doesn't argue with the USpolicy on immigration, but he
has big concerns about howimmigrants are being talked
about and how they're beingtreated.
SPEAKER_06 (09:16):
We believe it's within the rights of the US
government or any government forthat matter to set immigration
policies that they believe makesense for their country and
their electorate.
So as a human rightsorganization, we are not a
pro-immigration organization perse.
But selling lawful immigrationpolicies does not mean that you
(09:41):
have the right to mistreatmigrants, even migrants who are
undocumented in the country.
And very sadly, that's what theUS administration is doing.
It's rounding up Venezuelanmigrants in the US and sending
them to El Salvador, to prisonswhere they are being tortured,
where they are experiencingsexual abuse.
(10:02):
And that's a clear violation ofhuman rights norms.
So the Trump administration iswithin its right to set the
immigration policy that itwants, that its electors want.
It's within its right to controlits borders.
It's not within its right tosend migrants to be tortured in
another country.
It's not within its rights todetain migrants in inhumane
(10:27):
conditions.
So, you know, that's whatinternational human rights law,
international human rights normsdo.
They constrain governments tomake sure that people's rights
are being respected, even peoplewho may be undocumented in the
US today.
SPEAKER_03 (10:44):
Do you think that message from you, though, is is
getting across?
I mean, we hear very often, Imean, not just in the United
States, but in in Europe too,people cite immigration as one
of their biggest concerns.
Do you think the framing of thedebate is wrong?
SPEAKER_06 (11:05):
I mean, there is no question that the sort of uh
anti-immigration sentiment hasuh fueled the rise of uh
illiberal movements both in theUS and and in Europe.
And you know, uh some populistpolitical movements are
demonizing uh migrants or asylumseekers, they are making them
responsible for all the ills ofthe societies, they are
(11:29):
demonizing them in ways that areextremely dangerous and sort of
uh contrary to human rightsvalues and uh human rights
norms.
So I think we need to separatewhat is uh a sort of a
legitimate uh political debateabout uh how to control
immigration in any uh givencountry from what would be more
(11:50):
in the range of uh hatemongering, from uh demonizing
entire uh communities andcheering at times the violations
of their rights.
Even people who are illegally ina country have rights that have
to be respected, they are dueprocess.
There is a rule of law in theUS, in many other countries, and
and uh the Trump administrationis crossing these lines every
(12:13):
day and is not only demonizingimmigrant communities but uh
violating their rights.
We see that with the thepractices of ICE in uh uh
Minnesota, massed agents whocannot be identified, who uh use
uh policing methods that are uhimproper, unlawful, to people
(12:34):
who have been killed uh in justthe last uh month without uh any
lawful justification.
So these uh trends are verydangerous and they do fuel the
rise of uh illiberal movements.
SPEAKER_03 (12:46):
It's interesting that you've used in your last
answer there the word demonizinga couple of times, and that was
actually my next question is doyou fear the consequences of the
kind of language that is used bysome political leaders about
immigrants?
We've heard how President Trump,for example, talks about members
(13:09):
of the Somali community.
SPEAKER_06 (13:11):
I mean, the demonization of entire
communities uh does have uh reallife consequences.
One has to wonder how muchPresident Trump's attack on uh
Ilan Omar, a US Congresswomanwho came from Somalia, uh who
was victim of uh an attack acouple of days ago, how much
President Trump's attacks on herand demonizing of her and the
(13:35):
entire community, how much of arole did that play in that
individual attack?
So this type of rhetoric isdangerous and and it has uh real
world uh consequences.
SPEAKER_03 (13:46):
We're also facing a kind of war of words about
what's what's true or not.
So when I talk to some of myfriends and colleagues in the
States, many of whom, because oflimited holidays and cash flow
issues, have not been to Europefor a very, very, very long
(14:06):
time.
They do ask me, Oh, how are youcoping with all the crime?
And they mentioned this phrase,civilizational erasure, which we
saw in the US national securityreport.
How do we work on combatingsomething which I think many
people in Europe would say,yeah, that's completely the
wrong picture of how we are?
SPEAKER_06 (14:28):
Yeah, I mean it's clear that the Trump
administration is uh, you know,flirting with uh white
nationalist ideologies, a sensethat, you know, the European
civilization is in decline, isis openly supporting illiberal
movements in Europe, and uh isuh trying to draw strength from
that.
So these narratives are ofcourse dangerous, they are toxic
(14:52):
for many communities.
You know, they are playing intosome of the worst tendencies of
the electorate in some placeswho you know resort to uh
scapegoating entire communities,and they believe that you know
they can renege on the rights ofthese communities, and they
don't think that eventually thiswill come back to haunt them,
(15:13):
that their rights will also beunderline at some point.
And history shows that often youstart with the the most
disfavored or vulnerable uhcommunities in a society, but as
authoritarian tendenciesprogress, eventually it's large
parts of the populations thatare deprived of their rights and
deprived of you know theopportunity to choose the
(15:36):
government that that rules overthem.
SPEAKER_03 (15:39):
Do you think that's an increasingly difficult
argument to make, though, in thecurrent climate?
We moving more towards this uhidea of sovereignty, uh nation
states, us, the indigenouspopulation, even personal
identity, that that wholeprinciple of of um human rights
(16:02):
being universal is getting lost.
It might not resonate withpeople if you say to them, look,
if you harm somebody else'srights, even somebody you don't
like, you disagree with, youwish didn't live on your street,
in the end it's going to be badfor you too.
SPEAKER_06 (16:18):
You know, I think ultimately people want their
rights.
Uh you see it these days in theUS when the sort of uh reaction
to uh the ICE practices in uhMinneapolis, where the Trump
administration is clearly underpressure.
We wrote a report about thetorture of uh Venezuelan uh
migrants uh that was uh aired onuh 60 minutes.
(16:41):
These things matter, the factsdo matter, and and Human Rights
Watch is really well positionedactually to establish those
facts.
You know, in a world where theTrump administration is uh
promoting, you know, fake newsand uh alternative facts.
At the end of the day, if youcan bring the real facts to the
table, you you can influencepublic opinion.
SPEAKER_03 (17:02):
And that's one of the problems around the
immigration debate.
There are opinions and there areimpressions.
Philippe Bolopian and Jan Eglundhave their views about human
rights, about the right toasylum.
But some communities do feelgenuine concern about
immigration.
SPEAKER_10 (17:20):
On immigration, I think Europe was foolish.
We attracted the wrong kind ofimmigrants.
We need immigrants, but we needto keep attracting the right
kind.
SPEAKER_09 (17:28):
Doesn't where they were from.
It's just the fact that suddenlyfive to six hundred males, young
males will be in the town andwandering around them.
SPEAKER_10 (17:38):
But our main specialty is attracting
immigrants that are actuallywilling on the social system,
and our citizens see this, andthis is fuel to the extreme
right.
SPEAKER_03 (17:47):
They worry about job security, about pressure on
public services, and aboutcrime.
SPEAKER_10 (17:53):
It is a problem because we don't know the um, we
don't know the criminal record,we don't know the medication.
SPEAKER_07 (17:58):
They walk around in gangs, you're not safe because
you're usually on your own, butthey're always in groups of at
least five.
SPEAKER_03 (18:05):
That's why, as Philippe said, we need facts.
To get some, I went to Geneva'sGraduate Institute to talk to
Vincent Shetai.
He's director of the GlobalMigration Centre at the
Institute.
In an office surrounded by dataabout migration, with studies
from dozens of countries.
(18:25):
I asked him first what the datashowed about migrant workers
putting pressure on the jobsmarket.
SPEAKER_12 (18:32):
Overall, most studies make clear that migrant
workers are not in competitionwith national workers on the
labour market.
Generally, they are taking jobswhich are not taken by nationals
as such.
And obviously, you can in somespecific sector find a
(18:54):
difference, but overall, as ageneral trend, there is no risk
of unemployment among thenational population because of
migration.
SPEAKER_03 (19:04):
People also say migrants are putting pressure on
hospitals and housing, whichreally should be for national
people.
SPEAKER_12 (19:13):
Notice is another interesting argument because,
first of all, in western statesthe medical sector depends on
migrant workers.
This is true, particularly truefor the UK, the US, and many
other countries in Europe.
The hospitals cannot survivewithout foreign doctors and so
(19:34):
on.
So this is quite interesting,this kind of uh counter
argument.
And then they are not usinghealthcare more extensively than
nationals.
Sorry.
Yes, housing again, because Imean the problem is that housing
(19:55):
is more about the market as suchthan the population per se, in
the sense that most uhincentives in terms of welfare
benefit for housing and so on,many are reserved to nationals,
and here again there is notension between uh more
(20:16):
migration and less housing.
There is no correlation.
SPEAKER_03 (20:19):
And then the one we we read about a lot in the
newspapers migrants commit morecrime.
SPEAKER_12 (20:25):
Yes, here again, and it is interesting because we
have a very good databases nowsince more than one century in
the US, and uh it is clearlydemonstrated that they are
overall uh I mean foreign bornuh migrants are committing
overall less uh crimes thannational population.
(20:49):
If you of course exclude thequestion of documentation, uh
the administrative fines relatedto source wound so a crime
related to not having the rightpapers.
Exactly.
So if we exclude T's, of course,but even here, I mean, in the
sense that uh again, contrary tothe common uh misperception,
undocumented migrants are a verysmall uh minority, in fact,
(21:13):
according to all projections.
Uh the vast majority of migrantsare coming with a regular paper
visa and so on.
SPEAKER_03 (21:22):
There's one country in Europe which is taking a
slightly different approach toimmigration.
Spain, for example, has offeredan amnesty to undocumented
migrants.
It's not citizenship, it's anamnesty, perhaps a path to
citizenship later on.
Spain's economy is actuallydoing quite well.
Do you see a connection therethat other countries could learn
(21:43):
from?
SPEAKER_12 (21:43):
Several experts uh have mentioned that there is a
connection between economicdynamism of Spain compared to
other European countries andimmigration.
So this is correlated by severalstudies.
Then it would be too easy in thesense, of course, it is part.
The picture.
But uh I don't want to replaceone narrative by another one in
(22:05):
the sense that obviouslymigration is an avenue for
economic development for Shu,but obviously this is not the
only one in the sense thatdynamism of Spain is partially
due to immigration, but thereare many other factors.
SPEAKER_03 (22:19):
You've given me lots of evidence, lots of facts,
quoted lots of reports.
But how do you combat this fear?
Because I hear it also frompeople who I would have been
surprised.
They say I feel threatened, I'mworried, I'm worried for my
daughters.
Can you counter that fear withyour facts?
SPEAKER_12 (22:39):
I mean, this is not to me to counter a narrative
which is wrongly sprayed for badreasons by politicians.
I'm not responsible for this.
I'm responsible as anindependent scholar to tell the
truth to those who are asking mesome evidence.
But obviously, what is verydisturbing now is that even I'm
(23:04):
working in this area since threedecades, and I can see that even
a pure evidence-based approachis no longer accepted as such.
And this is quite telling aboutthe level of manipulation we
have reached today in this area.
(23:25):
Despite all the importantcontribution after the Second
World War, human rights, fightagainst racism, what is striking
is the racialization of thediscourse and the fact that
despite the formal prohibitionof hate speech, now hate speech
(23:47):
has become the new normal,clearly.
And here this is very worrisomein the sense that we are
reaching a peak in terms ofviolent anti-migrant rhetoric,
which has nothing to do with thereality.
I'm used to say to my studentsthat the reality of migration is
at the opposite of what isdescribed by in political
(24:10):
discourse and mass media assuch.
And obviously, there are manyreasons for this gap.
The gap is huge between uhreality and misperception, and
there are many reasons for seethis gap.
First of all, of course,electionering is a key factor.
(24:30):
Using migrants as capevilles toavoid addressing the real issues
at stake, climate change,unemployment, health issues and
so on.
So obviously, this is part ofthe picture.
SPEAKER_03 (24:41):
When you hear some of this rhetoric, I mean it
seems to become quite extremenow in the United States.
Does this concern you?
SPEAKER_12 (24:51):
Of course, uh, I mean uh the US is the state in
the world with the mostimportant number of migrants,
and uh most of its economicgrowth is also due to this
contribution.
What is extremely worrisome isrelated to the systematic
violation of the most basichuman rights of migrants.
(25:12):
Aber Scorpus, the right toexplain uh its own situation.
So what is worrying is also therule of law is under attack
through the operation againstthe migrants.
And TC is extremely worrisome assuch.
SPEAKER_01 (25:27):
And first of all, I want to thank El Salvador and
their president for theirpartnership with the United
States of America to bring ourterrorists here and to
incarcerate them and haveconsequences for the violence
that they have perpetuated inour communities.
SPEAKER_05 (25:39):
A new report found some Venezuelan citizens
deported by the Trumpadministration to El Salvador
faced horrifying abuse duringtheir time in a notorious
prison.
The abuse allegedly includessystematic torture, sexual
violence, and forceddisappearances.
SPEAKER_03 (25:55):
So the facts don't really support the negative
rhetoric around immigration,Vincent Shetai says.
But as he points out, facts andoften the institutions which
produce them are not reallytrusted anymore, at least by
some sectors of the population.
That's why even Vincent, whodeals primarily in statistics,
(26:18):
has come to share some of theconcerns of human rights groups.
That the debate on immigrationis now being twisted into a real
threat to our fundamental rightsand principles.
Human Rights Watchers' annualreport for 2026 warns that our
global system of human rights isunder threat.
(26:40):
And so I had another questionfor Philippe Baulopion.
So when you see the people ofMinnesota peacefully protesting
against these immigration raids,delivering food to their
neighbors who are frightened togo out, does that give you some
confidence that not everything'slost?
(27:01):
Because in your report, you'reasking if the United States has
switched sides on human rights?
SPEAKER_06 (27:07):
Well, it's clear that the government, the Trump
administration, is hostile tothe human rights uh movement and
to the entire ecosystem of humanrights norms.
You know, President Trump isproud to be bound only by his
own morality, not byinternational law.
He's proud to order unlawfulstrikes on the boats of uh
(27:28):
alleged uh drug traffickers inthe Pacific or in the Caribbean,
for example.
So the US government doesn'tspeak for the entire American
people.
And ultimately, you know, that'swhere the response uh lies to
protect rights.
It's in electors, voters whodemand their rights, who protest
(27:49):
the abuses of uh power.
And uh, you know, ultimatelythat's uh that's a battle to be
won in the electoral system.
We we do not take politicalpositions as a as a nonprofit
organization.
Human rights is our is ourmandate.
And these days it's it's hardnot to see that the Trump
administration is uh raising afundamental challenge to a lot
(28:12):
of the rights and values thatthe American people have uh
fought for.
We we see a deterioration ofdemocracy in the US, a rapid
deterioration of democracy andan attack on all of the pillars
of this democracy, all of thechecks on power for the
president.
And it's a dangerous uh slideand it really has consequences
(28:33):
for the entire world.
SPEAKER_03 (28:34):
And that brings me on to my very last question,
because if we broaden it outfrom the United States, although
obviously there is an awful lotof focus on the US at the
moment, there are millions ofpeople, including the listeners
to this podcast, who do reallywant to stand up for their
(28:56):
rights and they want to keepthem.
What should they be doing?
SPEAKER_06 (29:00):
I mean, I would say that, you know, aspiration for
human rights is a very enduringfeeling.
You know, you can see thatpeople, even when they face
tremendous odds these days inIran, for example, risking their
lives to march on the street todemand basic human rights.
It's a powerful, enduring idea,uh, one that authoritarian
(29:23):
governments around the world aretrying to smash, but they never
can do that durably.
And uh so you know, often peoplewho who study democracy say that
democracy dies with a whimper,not with a big bang, it dies
through a thousand cuts whenpeople renounce their rights.
So I think if we are to to pushback against this trend of uh
(29:47):
receding human rights, recedingdemocracy, it's really for
people to rise up wherever theyare and do whatever they can to
not tolerate an encroachment ontheir basic rights.
SPEAKER_03 (30:06):
And that rallying cry from Philippe Bolopion
brings us to the end of thisedition of Inside Geneva.
If you are concerned that yourand your neighbour's rights are
in danger, stand up and defendthem.
We know immigration remains achallenging topic, but we hope
this program brought some usefulperspective to the debate.
(30:28):
We'd love to hear your thoughtson the issue, so please share
them by writing to us atinsidegeneva at swisinfo.ch.
Next time, to mark InternationalWomen's Day, we'll be looking at
the situation for women inAfghanistan and asking whether
(30:51):
the world has forgotten them.
Join us on March 3rd for thatepisode.
A reminder you've been listeningto Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info
production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
(31:11):
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_02 (00:22):
We've been dealing with the refugee situation for
10 years.
At some point, that's enough.
SPEAKER_10 (00:26):
There's a new battle on the streets of Britain,
fought with flags and calls fordeportations and fear-mongering
about immigrants.
SPEAKER_11 (00:34):
In Europe, we're rather seeing one country after
the other erecting barbed wirearound their country and around
our continent.
SPEAKER_00 (00:46):
They're pouring into our country.
Nobody's even looking at them.
They just come in.
The crime is going to betremendous.
The terrorism is going to be.
SPEAKER_06 (00:54):
We believe it's within the rights of any
government to set immigrationpolicies that they believe make
sense for their country andtheir electorate.
But setting lawful immigrationpolicies does not mean that you
have the right to mistreatmigrants.
SPEAKER_12 (01:41):
We are reaching a peak in terms of violent
anti-migrant rhetoric, which hasnothing to do with the reality.
SPEAKER_03 (01:55):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
How shall I describe it?
Tricky, challenging, divisive,polarized debate around
immigration.
It seems to dominate ourpolitical discourse.
Other challenges like climatechange, even conflict, have been
(02:18):
pushed down the agenda.
So why have we become soconcerned about this issue?
What are the facts and figuresbehind the political rhetoric?
That's what we're going to talkabout in this episode.
And we're going to start with aconversation I had recently with
Jan Eglund, Secretary General ofthe Norwegian Refugee Council,
(02:40):
who told me he was dismayed bythe tone of the debate in Europe
and by what he sees as a lack ofsupport for refugees.
SPEAKER_11 (02:49):
I think we are seeing a race to the bottom.
I had hoped we would be muchbetter off in Europe.
We're rather seeing one countryafter the other erecting barbed
wire around their country andaround our continent.
And it's in contradiction withthe uh Geneva Convention of
(03:12):
1951, which was made by and forEuropean refugees at the time.
How come we're then thecontinent putting that
convention to its grave justbecause we are not refugees
anymore?
SPEAKER_03 (03:27):
Do you think it's that?
Or because some people say that,you know, that was created in
the wake of the Second World WarConvention, and that really is
not suited to the situations wehave today when people are much
more mobile, there's moreconflict.
SPEAKER_11 (03:43):
There were millions and millions of refugees in
Europe at the time.
I mean, the Second World War washorrific.
Tens of millions were displacedaltogether.
In our time and age, alsomillions are displaced.
The point is that we're muchricher now.
We're more nationalistic, we'remore inward-looking, we're more
(04:05):
xenophobic as Europeans andNorth Americans.
We became so rich, we're notwilling anymore to share
protection in our countries.
It's a battle of values, andwe're losing this battle of
values at the moment, so we haveto fight harder for the people
(04:25):
who are desperately seekingprotection.
SPEAKER_03 (04:28):
But the thing is, you know, people don't feel
richer in Europe.
They feel challenged.
My own country.
It's a common refrain.
I can't get a house.
I can't get a doctor'sappointment.
And they're blaming, rightly orwrongly, immigration and asylum
and possibly mixing the twothings up.
SPEAKER_11 (04:48):
Yeah, I I disagree that it is these refugees that
is the cause to many of theproblems of an aging Europe, a
Europe that is not producing aswe should, has not been as
innovative as we should, is noteducating the young generations
as well as we should.
(05:08):
And that's the uh the fault ofthe refugees or the asylum
seekers.
No, it's not.
Actually, it will be a problemfor Europe, an aging Europe, if
we do not have people comingfrom outside.
SPEAKER_03 (05:22):
I met a very senior diplomat in Geneva who was
justifying their government'squite savage cuts in foreign
aid, who said, we've beenspending this money for decades
and what has it improved?
Absolutely nothing.
SPEAKER_11 (05:38):
I also hear that for from some now.
What's the interest of Europe tohelp in Africa and in Sudan and
elsewhere?
Why should we care?
Because it's in harmony with ourideals and our interests.
If you want to live in a stableworld without uncontrolled
(05:58):
migration, pandemics, wars, andinsecurity, you invest in hope
for people who have beendisplaced.
It's it's a simple equation,really.
Millions are people displaced byviolence.
They need to have hope.
If not, we will learn to regretit in Europe because they will
(06:19):
want to move, and there willalso be instability very close
to a continent.
SPEAKER_03 (06:25):
Just to come back to what you were saying earlier,
you said we've become moreinward-looking and more
nationalistic and xenophobic.
Why do you think that is?
SPEAKER_11 (06:38):
I think uh number one, we've not been good enough
explaining how often we succeed.
I mean, again, in Syria, I'vebeen to places where people
returned from after 12 years ofdisplacement, and the school
that my organization, NorwegianRefugee Council, helped rebuild,
(06:59):
the children were singing uh injubilant of having returned to
their ancestors' land, and wewere helping people rebuild
their homes.
But those kind of successstories were not getting to the
taxpayers who believe it oftenis a hopeless case, and then we
(07:20):
forget that if there'sinstability in the world and no
hope for hundreds of millions ofpeople elsewhere, it will come
to haunt us as a continent.
We need to go from this race tothe bottom.
Of course we have to re receivepeople as we've done now for
generations.
(07:41):
If they seek protection, if theydon't need protection, of course
they can be returned.
We cannot end Europeancivilization and solidarity like
this.
How come we are putting theRefugee Convention and the right
of asylum to its grave?
It is contrary to what webelieve in as European
(08:03):
civilization.
SPEAKER_03 (08:04):
So dismay about what's happening in Europe from
Yan Eglund, meanwhile, events inthe United States are causing
alarm among human rights groups.
SPEAKER_04 (08:19):
The U.S.
has sent hundreds of mostlyVenezuelan migrants to be held
without trial at this megaprison in El Salvador.
SPEAKER_03 (08:27):
The roundups by immigration control forces or
ICE, and in January, theshooting of protesters were
shocking to many.
SPEAKER_02 (08:40):
More than technically managed to be
agents, humbling people, one ofour constituents, shooting the
deputy.
SPEAKER_04 (08:50):
Mourners left tributes on a frozen snowbank,
the site where Alex Predi wasshot and killed by federal
agents, and the world needs torespond to this.
SPEAKER_08 (08:59):
We are fighting for our democracy in our country.
SPEAKER_03 (09:01):
Philippe Bolapion is executive director of Human
Rights Watch.
He doesn't argue with the USpolicy on immigration, but he
has big concerns about howimmigrants are being talked
about and how they're beingtreated.
SPEAKER_06 (09:16):
We believe it's within the rights of the US
government or any government forthat matter to set immigration
policies that they believe makesense for their country and
their electorate.
So as a human rightsorganization, we are not a
pro-immigration organization perse.
But selling lawful immigrationpolicies does not mean that you
(09:41):
have the right to mistreatmigrants, even migrants who are
undocumented in the country.
And very sadly, that's what theUS administration is doing.
It's rounding up Venezuelanmigrants in the US and sending
them to El Salvador, to prisonswhere they are being tortured,
where they are experiencingsexual abuse.
(10:02):
And that's a clear violation ofhuman rights norms.
So the Trump administration iswithin its right to set the
immigration policy that itwants, that its electors want.
It's within its right to controlits borders.
It's not within its right tosend migrants to be tortured in
another country.
It's not within its rights todetain migrants in inhumane
(10:27):
conditions.
So, you know, that's whatinternational human rights law,
international human rights normsdo.
They constrain governments tomake sure that people's rights
are being respected, even peoplewho may be undocumented in the
US today.
SPEAKER_03 (10:44):
Do you think that message from you, though, is is
getting across?
I mean, we hear very often, Imean, not just in the United
States, but in in Europe too,people cite immigration as one
of their biggest concerns.
Do you think the framing of thedebate is wrong?
SPEAKER_06 (11:05):
I mean, there is no question that the sort of uh
anti-immigration sentiment hasuh fueled the rise of uh
illiberal movements both in theUS and and in Europe.
And you know, uh some populistpolitical movements are
demonizing uh migrants or asylumseekers, they are making them
responsible for all the ills ofthe societies, they are
(11:29):
demonizing them in ways that areextremely dangerous and sort of
uh contrary to human rightsvalues and uh human rights
norms.
So I think we need to separatewhat is uh a sort of a
legitimate uh political debateabout uh how to control
immigration in any uh givencountry from what would be more
(11:50):
in the range of uh hatemongering, from uh demonizing
entire uh communities andcheering at times the violations
of their rights.
Even people who are illegally ina country have rights that have
to be respected, they are dueprocess.
There is a rule of law in theUS, in many other countries, and
and uh the Trump administrationis crossing these lines every
(12:13):
day and is not only demonizingimmigrant communities but uh
violating their rights.
We see that with the thepractices of ICE in uh uh
Minnesota, massed agents whocannot be identified, who uh use
uh policing methods that are uhimproper, unlawful, to people
(12:34):
who have been killed uh in justthe last uh month without uh any
lawful justification.
So these uh trends are verydangerous and they do fuel the
rise of uh illiberal movements.
SPEAKER_03 (12:46):
It's interesting that you've used in your last
answer there the word demonizinga couple of times, and that was
actually my next question is doyou fear the consequences of the
kind of language that is used bysome political leaders about
immigrants?
We've heard how President Trump,for example, talks about members
(13:09):
of the Somali community.
SPEAKER_06 (13:11):
I mean, the demonization of entire
communities uh does have uh reallife consequences.
One has to wonder how muchPresident Trump's attack on uh
Ilan Omar, a US Congresswomanwho came from Somalia, uh who
was victim of uh an attack acouple of days ago, how much
President Trump's attacks on herand demonizing of her and the
(13:35):
entire community, how much of arole did that play in that
individual attack?
So this type of rhetoric isdangerous and and it has uh real
world uh consequences.
SPEAKER_03 (13:46):
We're also facing a kind of war of words about
what's what's true or not.
So when I talk to some of myfriends and colleagues in the
States, many of whom, because oflimited holidays and cash flow
issues, have not been to Europefor a very, very, very long
(14:06):
time.
They do ask me, Oh, how are youcoping with all the crime?
And they mentioned this phrase,civilizational erasure, which we
saw in the US national securityreport.
How do we work on combatingsomething which I think many
people in Europe would say,yeah, that's completely the
wrong picture of how we are?
SPEAKER_06 (14:28):
Yeah, I mean it's clear that the Trump
administration is uh, you know,flirting with uh white
nationalist ideologies, a sensethat, you know, the European
civilization is in decline, isis openly supporting illiberal
movements in Europe, and uh isuh trying to draw strength from
that.
So these narratives are ofcourse dangerous, they are toxic
(14:52):
for many communities.
You know, they are playing intosome of the worst tendencies of
the electorate in some placeswho you know resort to uh
scapegoating entire communities,and they believe that you know
they can renege on the rights ofthese communities, and they
don't think that eventually thiswill come back to haunt them,
(15:13):
that their rights will also beunderline at some point.
And history shows that often youstart with the the most
disfavored or vulnerable uhcommunities in a society, but as
authoritarian tendenciesprogress, eventually it's large
parts of the populations thatare deprived of their rights and
deprived of you know theopportunity to choose the
(15:36):
government that that rules overthem.
SPEAKER_03 (15:39):
Do you think that's an increasingly difficult
argument to make, though, in thecurrent climate?
We moving more towards this uhidea of sovereignty, uh nation
states, us, the indigenouspopulation, even personal
identity, that that wholeprinciple of of um human rights
(16:02):
being universal is getting lost.
It might not resonate withpeople if you say to them, look,
if you harm somebody else'srights, even somebody you don't
like, you disagree with, youwish didn't live on your street,
in the end it's going to be badfor you too.
SPEAKER_06 (16:18):
You know, I think ultimately people want their
rights.
Uh you see it these days in theUS when the sort of uh reaction
to uh the ICE practices in uhMinneapolis, where the Trump
administration is clearly underpressure.
We wrote a report about thetorture of uh Venezuelan uh
migrants uh that was uh aired onuh 60 minutes.
(16:41):
These things matter, the factsdo matter, and and Human Rights
Watch is really well positionedactually to establish those
facts.
You know, in a world where theTrump administration is uh
promoting, you know, fake newsand uh alternative facts.
At the end of the day, if youcan bring the real facts to the
table, you you can influencepublic opinion.
SPEAKER_03 (17:02):
And that's one of the problems around the
immigration debate.
There are opinions and there areimpressions.
Philippe Bolopian and Jan Eglundhave their views about human
rights, about the right toasylum.
But some communities do feelgenuine concern about
immigration.
SPEAKER_10 (17:20):
On immigration, I think Europe was foolish.
We attracted the wrong kind ofimmigrants.
We need immigrants, but we needto keep attracting the right
kind.
SPEAKER_09 (17:28):
Doesn't where they were from.
It's just the fact that suddenlyfive to six hundred males, young
males will be in the town andwandering around them.
SPEAKER_10 (17:38):
But our main specialty is attracting
immigrants that are actuallywilling on the social system,
and our citizens see this, andthis is fuel to the extreme
right.
SPEAKER_03 (17:47):
They worry about job security, about pressure on
public services, and aboutcrime.
SPEAKER_10 (17:53):
It is a problem because we don't know the um, we
don't know the criminal record,we don't know the medication.
SPEAKER_07 (17:58):
They walk around in gangs, you're not safe because
you're usually on your own, butthey're always in groups of at
least five.
SPEAKER_03 (18:05):
That's why, as Philippe said, we need facts.
To get some, I went to Geneva'sGraduate Institute to talk to
Vincent Shetai.
He's director of the GlobalMigration Centre at the
Institute.
In an office surrounded by dataabout migration, with studies
from dozens of countries.
(18:25):
I asked him first what the datashowed about migrant workers
putting pressure on the jobsmarket.
SPEAKER_12 (18:32):
Overall, most studies make clear that migrant
workers are not in competitionwith national workers on the
labour market.
Generally, they are taking jobswhich are not taken by nationals
as such.
And obviously, you can in somespecific sector find a
(18:54):
difference, but overall, as ageneral trend, there is no risk
of unemployment among thenational population because of
migration.
SPEAKER_03 (19:04):
People also say migrants are putting pressure on
hospitals and housing, whichreally should be for national
people.
SPEAKER_12 (19:13):
Notice is another interesting argument because,
first of all, in western statesthe medical sector depends on
migrant workers.
This is true, particularly truefor the UK, the US, and many
other countries in Europe.
The hospitals cannot survivewithout foreign doctors and so
(19:34):
on.
So this is quite interesting,this kind of uh counter
argument.
And then they are not usinghealthcare more extensively than
nationals.
Sorry.
Yes, housing again, because Imean the problem is that housing
(19:55):
is more about the market as suchthan the population per se, in
the sense that most uhincentives in terms of welfare
benefit for housing and so on,many are reserved to nationals,
and here again there is notension between uh more
(20:16):
migration and less housing.
There is no correlation.
SPEAKER_03 (20:19):
And then the one we we read about a lot in the
newspapers migrants commit morecrime.
SPEAKER_12 (20:25):
Yes, here again, and it is interesting because we
have a very good databases nowsince more than one century in
the US, and uh it is clearlydemonstrated that they are
overall uh I mean foreign bornuh migrants are committing
overall less uh crimes thannational population.
(20:49):
If you of course exclude thequestion of documentation, uh
the administrative fines relatedto source wound so a crime
related to not having the rightpapers.
Exactly.
So if we exclude T's, of course,but even here, I mean, in the
sense that uh again, contrary tothe common uh misperception,
undocumented migrants are a verysmall uh minority, in fact,
(21:13):
according to all projections.
Uh the vast majority of migrantsare coming with a regular paper
visa and so on.
SPEAKER_03 (21:22):
There's one country in Europe which is taking a
slightly different approach toimmigration.
Spain, for example, has offeredan amnesty to undocumented
migrants.
It's not citizenship, it's anamnesty, perhaps a path to
citizenship later on.
Spain's economy is actuallydoing quite well.
Do you see a connection therethat other countries could learn
(21:43):
from?
SPEAKER_12 (21:43):
Several experts uh have mentioned that there is a
connection between economicdynamism of Spain compared to
other European countries andimmigration.
So this is correlated by severalstudies.
Then it would be too easy in thesense, of course, it is part.
The picture.
But uh I don't want to replaceone narrative by another one in
(22:05):
the sense that obviouslymigration is an avenue for
economic development for Shu,but obviously this is not the
only one in the sense thatdynamism of Spain is partially
due to immigration, but thereare many other factors.
SPEAKER_03 (22:19):
You've given me lots of evidence, lots of facts,
quoted lots of reports.
But how do you combat this fear?
Because I hear it also frompeople who I would have been
surprised.
They say I feel threatened, I'mworried, I'm worried for my
daughters.
Can you counter that fear withyour facts?
SPEAKER_12 (22:39):
I mean, this is not to me to counter a narrative
which is wrongly sprayed for badreasons by politicians.
I'm not responsible for this.
I'm responsible as anindependent scholar to tell the
truth to those who are asking mesome evidence.
But obviously, what is verydisturbing now is that even I'm
(23:04):
working in this area since threedecades, and I can see that even
a pure evidence-based approachis no longer accepted as such.
And this is quite telling aboutthe level of manipulation we
have reached today in this area.
(23:25):
Despite all the importantcontribution after the Second
World War, human rights, fightagainst racism, what is striking
is the racialization of thediscourse and the fact that
despite the formal prohibitionof hate speech, now hate speech
(23:47):
has become the new normal,clearly.
And here this is very worrisomein the sense that we are
reaching a peak in terms ofviolent anti-migrant rhetoric,
which has nothing to do with thereality.
I'm used to say to my studentsthat the reality of migration is
at the opposite of what isdescribed by in political
(24:10):
discourse and mass media assuch.
And obviously, there are manyreasons for this gap.
The gap is huge between uhreality and misperception, and
there are many reasons for seethis gap.
First of all, of course,electionering is a key factor.
(24:30):
Using migrants as capevilles toavoid addressing the real issues
at stake, climate change,unemployment, health issues and
so on.
So obviously, this is part ofthe picture.
SPEAKER_03 (24:41):
When you hear some of this rhetoric, I mean it
seems to become quite extremenow in the United States.
Does this concern you?
SPEAKER_12 (24:51):
Of course, uh, I mean uh the US is the state in
the world with the mostimportant number of migrants,
and uh most of its economicgrowth is also due to this
contribution.
What is extremely worrisome isrelated to the systematic
violation of the most basichuman rights of migrants.
(25:12):
Aber Scorpus, the right toexplain uh its own situation.
So what is worrying is also therule of law is under attack
through the operation againstthe migrants.
And TC is extremely worrisome assuch.
SPEAKER_01 (25:27):
And first of all, I want to thank El Salvador and
their president for theirpartnership with the United
States of America to bring ourterrorists here and to
incarcerate them and haveconsequences for the violence
that they have perpetuated inour communities.
SPEAKER_05 (25:39):
A new report found some Venezuelan citizens
deported by the Trumpadministration to El Salvador
faced horrifying abuse duringtheir time in a notorious
prison.
The abuse allegedly includessystematic torture, sexual
violence, and forceddisappearances.
SPEAKER_03 (25:55):
So the facts don't really support the negative
rhetoric around immigration,Vincent Shetai says.
But as he points out, facts andoften the institutions which
produce them are not reallytrusted anymore, at least by
some sectors of the population.
That's why even Vincent, whodeals primarily in statistics,
(26:18):
has come to share some of theconcerns of human rights groups.
That the debate on immigrationis now being twisted into a real
threat to our fundamental rightsand principles.
Human Rights Watchers' annualreport for 2026 warns that our
global system of human rights isunder threat.
(26:40):
And so I had another questionfor Philippe Baulopion.
So when you see the people ofMinnesota peacefully protesting
against these immigration raids,delivering food to their
neighbors who are frightened togo out, does that give you some
confidence that not everything'slost?
(27:01):
Because in your report, you'reasking if the United States has
switched sides on human rights?
SPEAKER_06 (27:07):
Well, it's clear that the government, the Trump
administration, is hostile tothe human rights uh movement and
to the entire ecosystem of humanrights norms.
You know, President Trump isproud to be bound only by his
own morality, not byinternational law.
He's proud to order unlawfulstrikes on the boats of uh
(27:28):
alleged uh drug traffickers inthe Pacific or in the Caribbean,
for example.
So the US government doesn'tspeak for the entire American
people.
And ultimately, you know, that'swhere the response uh lies to
protect rights.
It's in electors, voters whodemand their rights, who protest
(27:49):
the abuses of uh power.
And uh, you know, ultimatelythat's uh that's a battle to be
won in the electoral system.
We we do not take politicalpositions as a as a nonprofit
organization.
Human rights is our is ourmandate.
And these days it's it's hardnot to see that the Trump
administration is uh raising afundamental challenge to a lot
(28:12):
of the rights and values thatthe American people have uh
fought for.
We we see a deterioration ofdemocracy in the US, a rapid
deterioration of democracy andan attack on all of the pillars
of this democracy, all of thechecks on power for the
president.
And it's a dangerous uh slideand it really has consequences
(28:33):
for the entire world.
SPEAKER_03 (28:34):
And that brings me on to my very last question,
because if we broaden it outfrom the United States, although
obviously there is an awful lotof focus on the US at the
moment, there are millions ofpeople, including the listeners
to this podcast, who do reallywant to stand up for their
(28:56):
rights and they want to keepthem.
What should they be doing?
SPEAKER_06 (29:00):
I mean, I would say that, you know, aspiration for
human rights is a very enduringfeeling.
You know, you can see thatpeople, even when they face
tremendous odds these days inIran, for example, risking their
lives to march on the street todemand basic human rights.
It's a powerful, enduring idea,uh, one that authoritarian
(29:23):
governments around the world aretrying to smash, but they never
can do that durably.
And uh so you know, often peoplewho who study democracy say that
democracy dies with a whimper,not with a big bang, it dies
through a thousand cuts whenpeople renounce their rights.
So I think if we are to to pushback against this trend of uh
(29:47):
receding human rights, recedingdemocracy, it's really for
people to rise up wherever theyare and do whatever they can to
not tolerate an encroachment ontheir basic rights.
SPEAKER_03 (30:06):
And that rallying cry from Philippe Bolopion
brings us to the end of thisedition of Inside Geneva.
If you are concerned that yourand your neighbour's rights are
in danger, stand up and defendthem.
We know immigration remains achallenging topic, but we hope
this program brought some usefulperspective to the debate.
(30:28):
We'd love to hear your thoughtson the issue, so please share
them by writing to us atinsidegeneva at swisinfo.ch.
Next time, to mark InternationalWomen's Day, we'll be looking at
the situation for women inAfghanistan and asking whether
(30:51):
the world has forgotten them.
Join us on March 3rd for thatepisode.
A reminder you've been listeningto Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info
production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
(31:11):
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com