Migration has a deep-rooted history in human civilization, driven by political, economic, security, and cultural conditions. In the 21st century, most countries are grappling with the consequences of this phenomenon, whether as countries of origin or as destinations for migrants. The challenges stemming from this crisis are evident across various layers.
The History Of Afghan Migration To Iran
Afghanistan is among the few countries whose migrants frequently seek refuge in Iran, a migration pattern dating back several decades. Some of its citizens have expressed a desire to leave the country, particularly since the events of (the 7th of Saur). One of the primary destinations for Afghan migrants is Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran tops the list of countries hosting the largest number of Afghan refugees, a reality that cannot be denied. In a recent development, Amir Saeed Iravani, Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, stated during a Security Council meeting on Friday, the 21st of June, 2024, that his country hosts six million Afghan refugees. According to him, this refugee population costs Iran approximately $10 billion annually. Given Iran’s current economic challenges and various sanctions, this is a substantial amount.
Iran’s Approach To Interacting With Afghan Refugees
Iran’s approach to interacting with Afghan refugees raises occasional questions. The fate of several million Afghan migrants concerning issues such as housing, healthcare, children’s education, family reunification, citizenship, work rights, bank accounts, and other necessary facilities remains ambiguous. The unprecedented presence of Afghan migrants in Iran is a matter of public concern. Unlike some other countries where migration is governed by established policies, Iran lacks a comprehensive migration policy framework. The increasing sensitivity among host country residents towards migrants stems from this policy vacuum, which hampers positive interaction. Many migrants lack the minimum requirements for societal integration and lawful living. This policy vacuum is the primary barrier to positive engagement between the host population and migrants, aside from legal considerations regarding refugee treatment.
Playing With The Refugee Card
In Western countries, immigration policies often become a focal point of discussion during elections. However, for the first time, the issue of migrants has entered the presidential election campaign in Iran. Among the five conservative candidates and one representative from the reformist camp in Iran’s presidential election, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Masoud Pezeshkian emphasized the serious need to address the issue of migration in their campaign platforms, garnering widespread attention.
Ghalibaf stated his intention to close the eastern borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan, deport unauthorized migrants, and regulate the presence of legal refugees. The presidential candidate declared, “Finding a decisive solution to the multi-dimensional issue of illegal foreign nationals is a major concern of the people.” Ghalibaf asserts his expertise on the issue and pledges to address public concerns if elected to the next government. Meanwhile, legislative proposals such as the “National Immigration Organization” and the “National Residence Organization” remain pending in the parliament under Ghalibaf’s oversight.
It is expected that the issue of migrants will continue to be a serious topic of discussion throughout the election campaign, as is customary in any country.
Masoud Pezeshkian, the second-ranking candidate, has also advocated for complete border closures and prevention of migration. He emphasizes the need to regulate refugees and negotiate with European countries to accept some of the migrants residing in Iran. Pezeshkian highlights the constructive role of Afghan migrants in Iran’s development, stressing that their presence should be disciplined and orderly.
Fact-Checking Election Slogans
Some have criticized the positions of these two presidential candidates as populist tactics. Candidates seek political opportunities and utilize the “Xenophobia” card to gain votes from citizens. Reflecting on Ghalibaf’s past, a current presidential candidate who was previously Speaker of the Parliament, it’s notable that his past campaigns in 2005, 2013, and 2017 did not prominently feature slogans about border closures in their election campaigns. His current emphasis on migration issues is aimed at satisfying Iranian public sentiments, particularly concerning the widespread presence of Afghan migrants in Iran, which he views as a strategic opportunity.
Both presidential candidates have addressed the need to regulate migrants. They understand that completely closing borders is challenging, akin to Trump’s Mexico wall, the transfer of asylum seekers from England to Rwanda, and the strict stance of far-right parties in Europe. If the next government can formulate a comprehensive migration policy, the dissatisfaction of host countries may diminish. Without a doubt, clarity in such policies will define how borders are managed and how illegal migrants are handled, moving away from a policy vacuum that hampers migrant integration efforts.
Conclusion
Iran, in terms of development, economic growth, job creation, and workforce needs, is not traditionally a migrant-receiving country. Nevertheless, it hosts a significant number of Afghan refugees and migrants who contribute to its economy and society. The hope is to resolve this social crisis by formulating a migration policy that integrates Afghan refugees, allows them to contribute to Iran’s economy and development, provides them with identification, and enables them to play a pivotal role in nation-building.
These slogans have a historical context, and their implementation will depend on the policies of the winning candidate. Relying on nationalist slogans to antagonize the Afghan migrant community is not a viable strategy. Decisions regarding Afghan migrants are made at higher levels of governance, and the executive branch alone cannot effectuate substantial changes. While minor adjustments may occur, fundamental shifts are unlikely to materialize easily.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
