Citizens as moral agents of global justice? : a study of civil society’s motivations and resettlement practices in private sponsorship of refugees programs in Toronto

(1)

Citizens as Moral Agents of Global Justice? A study of

civil society’s motivations and resettlement practices in

Private Sponsorship of Refugees Programs in Toronto

Pauline Bon 11779586

Submitted on December 2nd 2019

Supervisor: Dr. Courtney Vegelin

Second Reader: Ioana Vrabiescu

RESMA in International Development Studies

Word Count: 31,886

(2)

Image source: Welcome to Canada, Teaching Refugees How to Iceskate by Stephen

(3)

Abstract

According to UNHCR, only 4.7 per cent of global refugee resettlement needs were met in 2018. The topic of resettlement is often addressed through debates on States’ duties in international law and the literature on modern theories of social justice yet overwhelmingly excludes resettlement policies and its implications for citizen engagement. In Canada, the country that resettles the most refugee claimants globally, Private Sponsorship of Refugees programs for resettlement challenge views that social institutions are closed-off systems permitting no agency from civil society. This paper aims to describe this unique policy, analyze the motivations of civil society stakeholders for sponsoring and question the ethical and moral agency of resettlement. Following a qualitative design, this paper addresses stakeholders motivations, challenges, and experiences through twenty-two in-depth interviews with sponsor volunteers, civil society workers and newcomers. Additionally a document analysis of the training documentation and policy sources provides descriptive accounts of the institutions and processes involved in sponsoring newcomers. This paper finds that practices of sponsors and civil society workers are grounded in underlying values of solidarity and charity. In parallel, moral normativity and a hierarchy of integration outcomes can be identified during settlement tasks carried out by sponsors, which defines what successful settlement means for newcomers after one year in Canada. Contributing to research on refugee resettlement, this paper intends to develop philosophical premises of migration policy in liberal democracies from global social justice approaches, legitimizing the interest of European countries in Canadian resettlement policies as a model to follow.

Keywords: Canada, refugee policy, solidarity, citizenship, integration policy, global social justice, private sponsorship

(4)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the many people who made this thesis a reality. Firstly, this thesis would not have been possible without my supervisor, Courtney Vegelin who went above and beyond what I could have expected from a supervisor. From our first meeting to the final moments, she has been by my side with patience, understanding and encouragement. In the hardest times, she always found the right words and always challenged me to be the best version of myself. She gave me time, even when she did not have any, and I am grateful for the discussions we had that were incredibly valuable to this thesis. I could not be more grateful to her for all her support.

I am also thankful to Ioana Vrabiescu for agreeing to be my second reader and evaluating this thesis.

Secondly, I want to thank Jennifer Hyndman from the Center for Refugee Studies at York University for welcoming me. Her insights and support throughout the initial stages of fieldwork until the last moments have guided this thesis. It has been a pleasure and an honor to work with her.

Thirdly, to all the participants who welcomed me into their homes and shared their experiences, I am grateful for your commitment and your willingness to transmit your work and knowledge to others across the world.

Fourthly, I especially want to share my gratitude to the Le Vay family, Anne-Lise, Paul, Charlotte, and Zoe, for opening the doors of their home and their family. Their continued support and care has been vital in the completion of this thesis.

Finally, I am thankful to Anne and Philippe for always believing in me when I did not, for comforting me when it was necessary and for pushing me to do better when I needed it. To Charlotte, Djian, Leonie, Cybele, Mila, Sophie, Emma, I am forever grateful for their critical insights, their moral support, opening the doors of their homes, and their unwavering friendship.

Merci!

(5)

List of Abbreviations

CCR Canadian Council for Refugees

CG Constituent Group

CS Community Sponsor

BVOR Programs Blended Visa Office Referred Programs

ESL English as a Second Language

GAR Programs Government Assisted Refugees Programs

G5 Group of Five

IRCC Immigration Refugees Citizenship Canada

PSR Programs Private Sponsorship of Refugees Programs

RSTP Refugee Sponsorship Training Program

ROC-O Resettlement Operation Centre in Ottawa

SAH Sponsorship Agreement Holder

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(6)

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. The sponsorship initiation: sponsor groups in PSR programs. Figure 2. Conceptual framework

Figure 3. Motivations, goals, and impact of sponsors on a range from solidarity to charity Figure 4. Why resettle?

Figure 5. Visualization To what end? Figure 6. New conceptual framework

Table 1. UNHCR (2017). Canada’s Refugee Resettlement Targets 2018-2020, in Canada’s Resettlement Levels 2018 and Global Resettlement Needs.

Table 2. Visualization of Research Design Table 3. Research Participants

(7)

Table of content

Acknowledgments 3

List of Abbreviations 4

List of Figures and Tables 5

Table of content 6

1. Introduction 8

1.1. Research context 10

1.2. Literature review 13

2. Philosophical context 18

2.1. Rawls’ heritage: the liberal approach to global social justice 18 2.2. Cosmopolitanism as the hospitality and community approach 21 2.3. Sen and the capabilities theory: an individual approach 23

2.4. Conclusion 25

3. Theoretical framework 26

3.1. Humanitarianism theory 26

3.2. Citizenship and volunteerism 34

3.3. Conclusion 40

3.4. Conceptual scheme 41

3.5. Research questions and operationalization 42

4. Methodology and ethics 43

4.1. Research Design 43

4.2. Data collection and Analysis 45

4.3. Positionality and Ethics 49

5. Why resettle? 51

5.1. Introduction 51

5.2. Sponsors’ perceptions of newcomers, privilege and commitment 51 5.3. Motivations of sponsors to resettle new Canadian 58

5.4. Conclusion 70

6. To what end? 72

6.1. Introduction 72

6.2. Settlement goals: expectations of sponsors for a successful settlement 72 6.3. Relationships and community-building in PSR programs 77

6.4. Values systems of sponsor 82

6.5. Conclusion 89

7. Discussions and Conclusions 91

(8)

References 103

Annexes 105

Annex 1. Operationalization table 105

Annex 2: Interview guide 108

(9)

1. Introduction

According to UNHCR, in 2018 only 4.7 per cent of global refugee resettlement needs were met. In 2019, Canada became the country that resettled the most refugees and its resettlement scheme is praised across the world as a model to export. The Canadian refugee resettlement policy is organized in three programs: the Government Assisted Refugees (GAR), the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR), and the Blended Visa Office Referral (BVOR) programs. Unique to the Canadian scheme, the PSR programs allow Canadian citizens to identify and sponsor refugees for settlement in their own neighbourhood or city. The sponsors have to support financially and emotionally the newcomers during one year after their arrival in Canada. Even though development programs have seen the arrival of new for-profit private actors, private sponsors do not fit into this category, as they are groups of individuals that do not seek profit. But, they are neither non-governmental organizations, funds, foundations nor governmental actors. Yet, their role is fundamental to understand the dynamics of the Canadian migration and integration policies. This thesis explores the role of the sponsors and conceptualizes them at the crossroad between humanitarian actors and citizens performing their civil responsibilities.

PSR programs have existed as a Canadian resettlement policies since the late 1970s. As they are not a well-known programs, the academic literature on this topic can be quite descriptive and historic (Piché 2003, Treviranus & Casasola 2003, Hyndman, Payne & Jimenez 2016, Macklin et al 2018). However, a new interest has sparked in the last couple of years in the academic world because of the significant role of PSR programs in the Syrian refugees resettlement in Canada. This peak is crystallized with the publication of policy briefs and recommendations (Hyndman, Payne & Jimenez 2016, Fratzke 2017) delivered to the Canadian government and the European Union and calling for more research on the programs and those who participate in them. Others have tried to define the success of PSR programs in terms of refugee integration and the roles of sponsors in this integration process, but the results are not often conclusive (Beiser 2003, Dhital 2015, Kumar Agrawal 2018). Finally, some authors have theorized the position of PSR programs within the global refugee regime and its implications on the shifting responsibilities of civil society in the domain of resettlement, normally exclusive to sovereign states (Labman & Pearlman 2018, Labman 2016, Yahyaoui Krivenko 2012, Tamara Lenard 2016). However, the private sponsorship system has not been conceptualized fully within the scope of humanitarian action and global social justice theories. Contributing to research on refugee resettlement, this thesis intends to develop philosophical premises of migration policy in liberal democracies from global social justice approaches.

(10)

Through liberal and cosmopolitan theories of global social justice (Rawls 1971, Sen 2009, Nussbaum 2003, Fraser 2005, Pogge 2008, Beitz 2005), the sponsors are conceptualized both within the national boundaries of the states and across borders, as performing duties of global social justice. The theoretical framework explores theories of humanitarianism, civil citizenship and volunteerism. Funded on the notions of charity and humanity (Barnett 2014), traditional humanitarian thought is embedded in the moral hierarchy of ‘those who give’ and ‘those who receive’. Accordingly, humanitarian actions are focused on immediately reducing the suffering of these recipients rather than addressing the structural inequalities. Furthermore, the crossroad between civil citizenship and volunteerism provides an individual lens and questions the frontier between civic engagement and humanitarian action, as well as provide a critical stance towards the responsibilization of citizens in liberal democracies. To problematize PSR programs, it is necessary to ask how and why motivations, perceptions, and settlement practices of individual sponsors and civil society workers are driven by principles of humanitarianism, charity and citizenship in PSR programs. This thesis aims to analyze the PSR programs, by exploring the motivations, perceptions and settlement practices of civil society stakeholders. Moreover, the objective is to question the ethical and moral agency of citizens as active participants in settling newcomers. To do so, the research design conducted in Toronto is a qualitative multi-methods design, with twenty-two in-depth interviews of sixteen sponsor volunteers and six civil society workers.

The social relevance of this research is embedded in the ethical questions raised by the recent return of extremist right wing parties and xenophobia. In a context where nationalism has been part of the global political environment and refugee policies are often disputed, it is a challenge to criticize solidarity-based initiatives like PSR programs. Nonetheless, it is because they are under attack that it is key to re-think and consolidate the principles of solidarity and global justice underlying refugee policies in western liberal democracies. For this reason, this thesis tries to create a space where the objectives and practices of stakeholders in PSR programs are explored, while still taking a critical stance towards them. Moreover, this thesis voluntarily creates knowledge and attention towards the PSR programs as a means to encourage similar initiatives to rise while considering why and how to design them.

Overview of thesis

In the next sections, the research context (1.1) presents the history and structure of the PSR programs. A short review of the literature (1.2) shows that PSR programs are not often studied and theorized. Though slightly unconventional, the Chapter 2 will present the philosophical

(11)

debates on global social justice to frame the ideas of this research. This is due to a lack of literature that theorizes PSR programs, as well as the need to explore the ethical considerations of resettlement policy. The theories of global social justice with the liberal (2.1), cosmopolitan (2.2), and capability (2.3) approaches form a unique philosophical framework in which to consider the stakeholders of PSR programs. Then, Chapter 3 will introduce the theoretical framework of this thesis which is rooted in features of humanitarianism (3.1), civil citizenship and volunteerism (3.2). Chapter 4 presents the research questions and operationalization (4.1), methodology (4.2), data collection and analysis methods (4.3) and ethical reflections that were faced in the field (4.4). Chapter 5 and 6 discuss the findings. Chapter 5 delves into the sponsors perceptions of inequalities faced by newcomers and how they define their own privilege (5.2), followed by an analysis of the motivations of sponsors to participate in PSR programs, ranging from charity to solidarity (5.3). Chapter 6 examines the ends that PSR programs stakeholders are trying to achieve. Analyzing the expectations of sponsors during settlement (6.2), the findings explore the definitions of success that are set by SAHs and sponsors. Moreover, the relationships and community-building during the settlement phase determine whether the PSR programs are designed to integrate newcomers in Canadian communities (6.3). The role of multicultural values and cultural differences perceived by sponsors is fundamental in understanding the dynamics at play during the settlement (6.4). The final chapter, Chapter 7, provides answers to the research question, implications for International Development Studies and policy recommendations.

1.1. Research context

As the PSR programs in Canada are unique and not well-known, it is fundamental to start with an overview of the context in which this research will take place. In the next section, the historic path leading to the current private sponsorship system is discussed and a quick overview of how the PSR programs work.

First, a quick overview of the recent history of Canadian immigration helps understand the dynamics at play. Starting from 1931 to 1950, there was almost no immigration in Canada. This period is called the “Dark Age” of Canadian immigration (Piché 2003) and there were strong movements of nationalism, racism and antisemitism in the population. Then from 1950 to 1975, the immigration regime slowly started opening up again motivated by discourses motivated by economic factors and utilitarian immigration policies (Piché 2003). According to Piché (2003), the policies focused on family reunification as a tool to catch up with the labor workforce needs. Immigration policies in the post World War II period were defined in contrast

(12)

to the Dark Age of migration. The two main rationales for accepting newcomers were the potential economic benefits and the humanitarian factor (Kelley & Trebilcock 1998). Today, it is important to know that Canada's population growth is only sustained by migration because its population is aging and fertility rates continue to drop (Stats Canada 2016).

It is in this unique context that the Canadian Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) programs were formally created in 1978. The genesis of PSR programs was the reaction to what is called the boat crisis , and allowed for the reception of tens of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and Indochinese in the late 1970s and early 1980s. One of the many reasons why PSR programs were created can be explained by the contrast with the ‘Dark Age’ of migration policy: “Canada has ‘stepped up’ during refugee crises since the Second World War, after it “fell down” before that time, doing little to help those fleeing the Holocaust” (Abella and Troper 1983, in Hyndman, Payne & Jimenez 2016, p10). This first refugee crisis defining private sponsorship was based on the public opinion's call for mobilization in the humanitarian crisis.

It is fundamental to understand the political context for migration and integration in Canada. Canada is defined as a multicultural country. Multiculturalism as a policy was implemented by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the late 1980s. “It fundamentally challenged the symbolic order of the Canadian nation. For most of Canada’s history, the policies of the Canadian state tended to fixate on Anglo-conformity and, to a lesser extent, the French fact. Today, being Canadian is not tied to a specific culture” (Abu-Laban & Gabriel 2001). Multiculturalist ideology is based on the recognition and promotion of ethnic and cultural differences in the public space. It is a political project to promote cohesion and integration through public recognition of differences (Canadian Multiculturalist Act 1985). In 2011, the Canadian Government assessed that one in five Canadians were foreign born, and the projections increase this number for the near future towards one in four Canadians in the next five years (Stats Canada 2011).

It is fundamental to provide a description of the PSR programs, their organization and the stakeholders involved. In the section 13(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (1976), private sponsorship is defined as follows: “A group of Canadian citizens or permanent residents, a corporation incorporated under a law of Canada or of a province, and an unincorporated organization or association under federal or provincial law, or any combination of them may, subject to the regulations, sponsor a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances.” (in Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko 2012, p591) The Canadian

(13)

government allows its citizens to sponsor refugees additionally to government assisted refugees. Moreover, it is a type of program that is unique in Canada and in the world, “Until recently, Canada has been the only country that offers private sponsorship to refugees in cooperation with the federal government that must coordinate screening and officially admit them” (Hyndman, Payne & Jimenez 2016, p. 9). This official collaboration between civil society and government to create a new stream for resettlement is the main reason why it is unique.

Figure 1. The sponsorship initiation: sponsor groups

There are three types of programs included in the private sponsorship system: the Community Sponsor (CS), the Group of Five sponsors (G5), and the constituent Groups (CG) of sponsorship agreement holders (SAH). In all three programs, the sponsors are able to choose the refugees that they are sponsoring. It is called the principle of naming, providing opportunities to refugees that would not have been selected by the Canadian government. This selection is often based on faith, ethnicity, family connections, or humanitarian reasons.

Even though the PSR programs were created and designed as additional programs to government programs, the latest data on the weight of the PSR programs in resettlement policy suggest the contrary. The government's target for 2016 regarding Privately Sponsored Refugees (PSRs) number of resettlements ranged from 15 000 to 18 000. The actual number of PSRs for 2016 was 18,362 resettled refugees (Stats Canada 2016).

(14)

Table 1. UNHCR (2017). Canada’s Refugee Resettlement Targets 2018-2020, in Canada’s Resettlement Levels 2018 and Global Resettlement Needs.

Before 2015, the numbers of PSR programs were not as high, but the targets were redefines to meet the needs of the Syrian refugee crisis. Similarly to the humanitarian crisis in the 1970s, public opinion is key in the push for higher sponsored refugees in Canada. Based on the UNHCR call for more humanitarian admission and resettlement of Syrian Refugees in 2014 (UNHCR 2016b), Canada welcomed more than 25,000 Syrian refugees between December 2015 and February 2016 as part of Operation Syrian Refugees. This commitment to Syrian Refugees was party accomplished thanks to PSR programs as they represented 34% of the Operation Syrian Refugees (Stats Canada 2016)..

The research context section shows important information on the Canadian history and current political issues that are influential in this research. The Canadian private sponsorship system has been described to give the reader knowledge on the historic, political and economic drivers for the creation and future of those policies.

1.2. Literature review

The literature on PSR programs has been sporadic since their creation in the late 1970s. The first articles described and analysed the programs in general terms. Then, in the early 2000s, some scholars examined the Canadian migration policy historically and conceptually. Finally, in the last three years, a lot of academic articles and policy recommendations have been produced. This literature review intents to understand what type of knowledge has been produced on PSR programs and their stakeholders. First, there are historical and descriptive approaches (Denton 2003, Treviranus & Casasola 2003, Lanphier 2003, Hyndman, Payne & Jimenez 2016, Macklin et al 2018, Haugen 2019, Bond & Kwadrans 2019). Second, the most common literature is on the topic of what is success for PSR programs, and how effective they are to integrate refugees - especially compared to government assisted programs (Beiser 2003, Dhital 2015, Marshall-Denton 2017, Kumar Agrawal 2018, Oda & al 2018, Haidaa, Houn

(15)

& Stick 2019, Hynie & al 2019, Good, Gingrich & Enns 2019, Fratzke 2017, Tamara Lenard 2019, McKee & al 2019, Kyriakides & al 2019, van Selm 2003). Finally, the role of PSR programs in humanitarian responsibility and the global refugee regime is explored (Labman & Pearlman 2018, Labman 2019, Ritchie 2018, Hirsch, Hoang & Vogl 2019, Yahyaoui Krivenko 2012).

Treviranus & Casasola (2003), Denton (2003) and Lanphier (2003) explore the evolution of the PSR programs, describe the challenges that practitioners face, and the practical perspectives of PSR programs. Those articles are important to the knowledge on PSR programs as they describe the evolution of the dynamics at play and they start to build the policy and practice knowledge on these programs. All three of them also observe the challenges that sponsors and newcomers face: the failure of the cases that are named by the sponsors, based on eligibility issues (Treviranus & Casasola 2003), the overseas processing waiting times and practical challenges (Denton 2003, Treviranus & Casasola 2003) and the lack of cultural training of sponsors (Lanphier 2003). All those papers are exploratory papers that allow the rest of the literature to expand on many other topics regarding PSR programs. It is only a dozen years later that scholars gain interest again in describing PSR programs and their challenges with policy briefs and investigations into the stakeholders of PSR programs (Hyndman, Payne & Jimenez 2016, Macklin & al 2018, Bond & Kwadrans 2019, Haugen 2019). The peaked interest in PSR programs is synchronized with the Syrian refugee crisis that played a significant role in the popularity of sponsorships. Hyndman, Payne & Jimenez (2016) published the first summary of how the PSR programs function, what are the challenges that both sponsors and newcomers face and the many disparities in knowledge of the PSR programs. For instance, the role of the local context is an important factor in understanding PSR programs, and Haugen (2019) explores the rural-urban divide by looking at the flaws and strengths of rural resettlement. One of the most important gaps in knowledge is on sponsors: who are the sponsors and what are their motivations to get involved in PSR programs. This is what Macklin & al (2018) tackle in their medium-scale quantitative study of sponsors. They conclude that “Sponsors are disproportionately white, well educated, middle to upper class women over fifty. Many are retired” (Macklin & al 2018, p53). The preliminary findings regarding motivations show the following factors: “spiritual commitment to ‘welcome the stranger’; for others, hospitality is filtered through an ethic of humanitarianism, international solidarity, or a belief that it instantiates Canadian identity, which in turn may be connected to personal, familial, or national narratives of migration history” (Macklin & al 2018, p54). This

(16)

thesis develops this approach to motivations and their diversity, nuances and contradictions of the PSR programs.

The second stream of literature on PSR programs explores thoroughly the question of how successful are PSR programs (Beiser 2003, Dhital 2015, Marshall-Denton 2017, Kumar Agrawal 2018, Oda & al 2018, Kaida, Hou & Stick 2019, Hynie & al 2019, Good, Gingrich & Enns 2019). Most of the literature on this topic studies the similarities and differences between Government Assisted Refugee (GAR) programs and Privately Sponsored Refugees (PSR) programs. The approaches to measure the success of PSR programs vary. First, Oda & al (2018) consider it through the lens of access to healthcare and conclude that GAR programs have higher unmet healthcare needs, but those findings are also mitigated by the fact that they are among the most vulnerable refugees with more complex medical issues than PSRs. Then, Beiser (2003), Kumar Agrawal (2018) and Kaida, Hou & Stick (2019) delve into the economic outcomes of both resettlement programs as a means to measure success. The idea the PSR programs are better at economically integrating refugees is underlying most those studies. Kaida, Hou & Stick (2019) show that PSRs maintain higher employment rates and earnings than GARs, especially among less educated refugees. But more authors come to the conclusion that the challenges faced by GARs and PSRs are similar (learning the language, finding employment and finding stable housing) (Beiser 2003), even though the economic outcomes might be more positive for PSRs. Nonetheless, government research (Dhital 2015, p40) still supports this hypothesis that through networks and community inclusion, PSRs have efficient access to employment and social capital. To add to that, Hynie & al (2019) determined that the measures of success can be attributed to pre-migration differences both in the experiences of refugees and of the local communities where they are resettled - length of time in transit, physical and psychological hardships, previous knowledge of English or French, having relatives in Canada, the importance of the local context - as well as the differences in social capital between GARs and PSRs (Hynie & al 2019). To conclude, they believe that comparing PSR programs to GAR programs is ineffective especially because PSR programs are not a homogenous group (Hynie & al 2019). The causal link between PSR programs and integration has been a focal point of research, but the conclusions are not clear.

Likewise, Marshall-Denton (2017) publishes a short reflection on the definition of success in PSR programs and she questions its measure. It is common that a successful integration for adult refugees is understood as having secured employment. But she shows that it is necessary to rethink conceptually the measure of success by comparing to the Canadian

(17)

average earnings rather than only comparing refugee programs with other refugee programs. Finally, the role of sponsors in that success has been a focus of scholars in the last couple of years (Fratzke 2017, Tamara Lenard 2019, McKee & al 2019, Kyriakides & al 2019). This role is conceptualized by Tamara Lenard (2019) through the attitude of sponsors towards success: if sponsors have a positive attitude towards finding employment, finding housing or learning English, the newcomers integrate better. Similarly, Kyriakides & al (2019) study the role of pre-arrival communications through email, text messages, etc. between sponsors and sponsored refugees. They show that there is a positive link between pre-arrival communications and faster integration of refugees by mitigating expectations of both parties. In sum, the role of sponsors in PSR programs has been studied only in terms of understanding the impact it has on the integration of the newcomers, with factors of success that are linked mainly to economic and institutional integration (access to healthcare, employment, etc.). Likewise, van Selm (2003) questions the role of non-government actors to motivate newly arrived resettled refugees to integrate, including finding employment, learning the language, mixing readily and easily in the community (van Selm 2003). Finally, Fratzke (2017) writes a policy brief to support PSR programs as a way to build stronger communities between refugees and receiving communities and improve refugee integration. This thesis does explore how stakeholders define success as it is a central concept of PSR programs to understand the goals and motives that govern the programs. However, the focus is not on the newcomers, but is inspired by the questions on the roles of sponsors in the experiences of newcomers during sponsorship. But this thesis does not try to quantify, categorize or compare the success of PSR programs, as it has proved to be unfruitful.

The final stream of literature on PSR programs tries to conceptualize the role of PSR programs in the global resettlement regime and the responsibilities of sovereign states (Labman & Pearlman 2018, Labman 2019, Ritchie 2018, Hirsch, Hoang & Vogl 2019). In the context of global resettlement, the ideological assumptions underlying the PSR programs are embedded in the privatization of refugee resettlement or subsidization of the government commitments (Labman & Pearlman 2018) and of refugee welfare (Ritchie 2018). Even though PSR programs are defined as additional to government commitments, there is a process of over-reliance and dependence on these programs for both resettlement and integration policy (Labman 2019). In parallel, the Canadian government describes PSR programs as grassroots community action (Ritchie 2018) which creates a mainstream narrative in contradiction with the argument of privatization. To illustrate that idea, Hirsch, Hoang, and Vogl (2019) describe a community-based resettlement program in Australia designed on the blueprints of PSR

(18)

programs in Canada. They find that those programs lead to a reduction of government accountability and financial commitment to humanitarian resettlement programming (Hirsch, Hoang, and Vogl 2019). Moreover, the selection process was impacted as the government ‘cherry-picked’ recipients that had an overall higher integration capacity, which absolutely undermined the humanitarian nature of the programs (Hirsch, Hoang, and Vogl 2019). In sum, additionally to the privatization of responsibilities of resettlement, the sponsorship programs created a model of economic self-sufficiency of refugee resettlement, rather than a humanitarian durable solution (Hirsch, Hoang, and Vogl 2019). Finally, Yahyaoui Krivenko (2012) provides a unique approach to conceptualizing PSR programs with a focus on the agency of individuals. She defined the PSR programs as a tool for individuals to become active subjects of international law, able to fulfill international obligations in the area of refugee and human rights protection (Yahyaoui Krivenko 2012). According to her, participation in PSR programs for Canadian citizens can be interpreted as a means to exercise an other sovereignty that can go against the State’s sovereignty (Yahyaoui Krivenko 2012). This thesis is inspired by this approach on agency of citizens to practice actively their sovereignty or their citizenship. Moreover, the role of humanitarian values in refugee protection are central in understanding the roles, motives and practices of stakeholders in PSR programs.

The literature on PSR programs does not explore in-depth the experiences and perceptions of sponsors as fundamental stakeholders in the functioning of the programs, as well as what their roles in the programs are in defining the experiences of newcomers. Moreover, the policy has been studied mainly through its outcomes rather than its motives and goals. This thesis develops a framework to analyze the ideological and theoretical assumptions behind the existence of PSR programs, as well as understand the goals that it is trying to reach in practice through the perspectives of sponsors and of the civil society.

(19)

2. Philosophical context

This chapter precedes the theoretical framework to develop the philosophical context in which the theoretical debates take place. Global social justice is a topic that is discussed across academic disciplines and philosophical approaches. The literature does not often link social justice theories with issues raised by global migration (Holscher & Bozalek 2012, Abraham 2010, Ingram 2002). The thread that connects philosophical debates to this research is the following question: how do theories of social justice relate to issues of non-citizen rights in global and national migration dynamics? In the first section, liberal theory is extensively described as it is fundamental to understand the institutional approaches to justice and the approach to social justice of some stakeholders for this research. In the second section, cosmopolitanism is discussed to develop the notions of hospitality and solidarity. Finally, the capabilities approach to global justice is described as a supplement theory that has the potential to give a background to the value systems behind the PSR programs. Looking at global justice as the real opportunities of individuals offers an alternative to liberal theory to analyze the stakeholders’ motivations and actions.

2.1. Rawls’ heritage: the liberal approach to global social justice

In this section, the heritage of Rawls’ thought on social justice is explored by detailing the liberal approach to global social justice. Social justice debates relate to the different views of society that the different views of society on philosophical questions and conceptualizations of justice. It is widely agreed that social justice is a set of principles of justice that applies to social institutions (Pogge 2008, Rawls 1971, Sen 2009). Those social institutions are not physical but societal, defined by social rules and arrangements (Rawls 1971, Sen 2009).

First, it is fundamental for this thesis to explore the liberal assumptions on the topic of global responsibilities - leading to the concept of liberal global justice. In Rawls’ writings, the scale of social justice is almost always at the national and institutional level (Rawls 1971, 1999). Rawls does not characterize justice from an individual perspective, but rather as an institution-based concept. Yet, he makes one exception in Law of Peoples (1999), where the topic of global justice and redistribution of wealth is briefly touched upon. As explained by Beitz (2005), Rawls argues that international distributive justice does not exist and individual states are not obligated to achieve and maintain any definite global distribution of wealth (Beitz 2005). In

(20)

this classical liberal conception of global social justice, there is no obligation to apply principles of justice and social cooperation globally and internationally.

Nevertheless, liberal theories on social justice have evolved since Rawls to include the argument that “well-offs societies have duties to assist other societies to escape the burdens that oppress them” (Beitz 2005). This burden that oppresses the ‘worst-off’ societies is mostly defined by social and economic inequalities between states (Beitz 2005). This ideological shift towards global duties is motivated by the observation that human rights considerations were not included in Rawls’ approach to liberal social justice. Traditionally inspired by Enlightenment philosophy, the human rights discourse in liberalism defines them as universal and independent from membership to a state. According to Nussbaum’s analysis of liberal theories of justice, they recognize the ‘transnational force of human rights’ (Nussbaum 2004, p. 8), but this redefinition of the terms of global justice is still blurry as to what the duties towards other states are, especially as the principles of non-intervention and state sovereignty often trump those duties.

Second, it is necessary to understand what a just society entails to liberal theories of social justice. According to Gaus, Courtland, and Schmidtz (2018), Rawls’ approach to a just society is based on the difference principle . The focus is on the means of social justice - incomes and economic opulence - so it is characterized as a consequentialist theory:

“the ‘difference principle’ according to which a just basic structure of society arranges social and economic inequalities such that they are to the greatest advantage of the least well off representative group (1999b:266). For Rawls, the default is an equal distribution of (basically) income and wealth; only inequalities that best enhance the long-term prospects of the least advantaged are just” (Gaus, Courtland, and Schmidtz 2018, section 2.3).

Important in this quotation is the definition of the notion of reciprocity, a structure that does not create inequalities, and where social groups are not benefiting from the economic and social inequalities of another social group. In line with this notion of reciprocity, Rawls presents the subject of justice as: “the way in which major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation” (Rawls 1971, p. 10). The way towards a just society is through redistributive justice. In keeping with a consequentialist perspective, the liberal approach positions a just economic order as a prerequisite to achieve social justice, To achieve such an order, it is considered necessary to “produce fair equality of opportunity across social classes and no feasible alternative to it would afford better prospects to the least advantaged” (Pogge 2005, p. 42). The liberal just economic order is reached when there are no alternatives that offer

(21)

opportunities to the least advantaged group of society. The liberal responsibility is defined as a negative duty - not to harm the least advantaged groups.

Now that the basic assumptions of liberal social justice have been laid out, it is important to delve into the specific topic of social integration in free markets and its mechanisms according to liberal approaches. Liberalism is founded on the principles of non-discrimination and individual free choices (Abraham 2010). Those principles are conceived as applying to free markets in order to create a free society. In this perspective, social justice is achieved through equal access to the free market and the free choices made within it, applicable to all individuals. However, it is necessary to question the divide between citizens and non-citizens within the free market of a state. To that effect, liberal theories of social justice conceptualizes equal opportunity through the logic of the free market, which does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. Further, it is crucial to have free migration in order to provide equal access and equal opportunities to all. In this rationale, free migration mitigates discrimination, as market mechanisms overcome inherited burdens (Abraham 2010, p. 969). In this case, the inherited burden is the status of non-citizen. The foundation of this reasoning is that there need to be open borders and free migration - equal access - in order for the market mechanisms to be effective on their own. Once equal access to the market is provided, global social justice is achieved by non-action and non-intervention in the free market. In the context of social justice for non-citizens, it is a topic that does not need to be addressed in the liberal perspective because of the self-regulatory mechanisms of the free market.

However, it is still necessary to provide equal opportunities to all to the free market. To do so, the liberal approach supports the apparatus of citizenship. According to Beitz (2005), the central argument in support of citizenship is the fact that market mechanisms don’t account for human rights violations. So membership to a state is often the preferred mechanism to implementing human rights (Beitz 2005). The states’ responsibilities are to provide both equal human rights to every citizen and to provide citizenship to every individual in the free market. This is understood as a global duty in order to maintain global human rights for all. According to Beitz, the Rawlsian principles of global human rights need to be supplemented by “principles to regulate organized international collaboration to ensure that all reasonable liberal societies people’s basic needs will be met” (Beitz 2005, p. 21). Through this argument, Beitz again supports the view that states are responsible to take action in both the national and the international realm. In this viewpoint, social justice is based on a conception of citizenship that is open to all and that entails international collaboration with other states (Beitz 2005). When considering the topic of migration in liberal social justice, there is a

(22)

tension between the liberal conception of the role of the state and questions of allocation and distribution in citizenship status.

To sum up, liberal social justice trusts two mechanisms to do the work of global justice: the free market self-regulation - as an egalitarian mechanism of economic justice - and citizenship - as a provider of human rights and equal access to the free market. Yet, the next section presents additional approaches that are relevant to understand the mechanisms of global social justice.

2.2. Cosmopolitanism as the hospitality and community approach

It is important to explore the fundamental arguments that cosmopolitanism presents. The cosmopolitan principles state that “Everyone should have the same opportunities to realize themselves as morally autonomous and fulfilled agents” (Ingram 2002, p. 406). Moral cosmopolitanism is based on the principle that every human being has a global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern (Beitz 2005). According to moral cosmopolitanism, every context is unique and has to be contextualized within its own set of moral rules and social rules (Beitz 2005). Thus it operates as individualistic and inclusive, and it does not come with a set of fixed moral principles for social justice implementation. It entails a conceptual shift from the responsibility of international regimes - focussing on duties of states - to the morality and practices of global social institutions as entities that can conceptualize individual agency within global social justice.

Thomas Pogge’s thought is representative of the main arguments that cosmopolitanism. To define global justice, Pogge starts by defining the concept of “radical inequality” (2005, p. 37). In this approach, radical inequality is analyzed from the viewpoint of both positive and negative rights. First, he says that in the current society, there are the “well-offs” and the ‘worse-offs’ and the gap between the two is global inequality. Looking at inequality from the viewpoint of negative rights, he determines that global inequality entails that the well-offs have violated global duties not to harm as their privilege depends on the under-privilege of others. In this argument, he assesses that negative duties - not to harm - are the priority of global justice. As well, intermediate duties - defined as duties to avert harms that one’s past conduct may cause in the future are similarly as important (Pogge 2005, p. 46). Those are negative duties, as they are active requirements to prevent harm to be done.

(23)

On the contrary, positive duties are obligations to actively improve the situation. According to the moral principles of cosmopolitanism, it is a global duty to lift the burden off the ‘worst-off’. It is similar to the global duties that are present in liberal thought, but cosmopolitanism goes further. The well-offs have positive duties to end or reduce the deprivations inflicted on the global poor (Pogge 2005, p. 36):

“I also see my argument as essential to an accurate portrayal of how we affluent citizens of the rich countries are morally related to those deprivations. (...) But because we are also implicated, with many others, in shaping and enforcing the social institutions that produce these deprivations, and are moreover benefiting from the enormous inequalities these unjust institutions reproduce, we have much more stringent duties to seek to reform these social institutions and to do our fair share towards mitigating the harms they cause” (Pogge 2005, p. 36).

This argument is central in the cosmopolitan approach to social justice: the well-offs individuals of well-offs countries are responsible to actively reduce inequalities. Additionally, some authors go further in this analysis and engage with the concept of global compensatory justice. Ingram supports a cosmopolitan theory of global compensatory justice and maintains that “the wealthy nations of the North - especially those that have profited from past slavery, the plundering of past colonies, or the Militarization of the Third World - not only redistribute their wealth to poorer nations but also open up their frontiers to “reverse” colonization” (Ingram 2002, p. 408). Deepening the analysis, the historical processes of domination and global poverty are taken into account in the redistribution of wealth globally. Cosmopolitan global justice endorses a viewpoint of active responsibility across national borders.

Those arguments lead to the notion of the responsibility to protect that drives global migration governance (Ingram 2002). In cosmopolitan thought, there is a strong emphasis on principles of social justice and human rights for non-citizens. The lead scholar in cosmopolitanism is Derrida (2000). According to Derrida, the concept of hospitality is at the center of the reflection of global justice and there is a tension between the two forces of hostility and hospitality:

‘’Hospitality is certainly, necessarily, a right, a duty, an obligation, the greeting of the foreign other [l’autre étranger] as a friend but on the condition that the host, the Wirt, the one who receives, lodges or gives asylum remains the patron, the master of the household, on the condition that he maintains his own authority in his own home [...] the being-oneself in one’s own home, the condition of the gift and of hospitality” (Derrida 2000, p. 4).

(24)

He argues that unconditional hospitality is an ideal that is unachievable. Ingram (2002) also explores this tension through the contradictory forces of self-preservation. He argues that the application of principles of justice to non-citizens rights can create a tense dynamic. On the one hand, the citizens have to support to migrants’ universal right to self-preservation, and their right to membership where they live (Ingram 2002, p. 406). On the other hand, the existing community has a right to exclude outsiders in pursuit of its own vital - social, economic and cultural - interests (Ingram 2002, p. 406). Cosmopolitanism is the only theory that voices this contradiction between the interests of local communities and the interests of migrants.

This philosophical approach is crucial when considering global justice in one country, especially as many stakeholders in civil society claim that they are acting on cosmopolitan principles of solidarity. Yet, Laitinen & Pessi (2014) mark a difference between the cosmopolitan global justice and solidarity:

“Solidarity can also arguably be separated from justice and general duties. For example, the German social philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1989) considers solidarity and justice to be two sides of the same coin. According to him, solidarity is always internal to some concrete community, while universal morality and justice require one to detach oneself from the internal bonds of concrete communities. This way solidarity is always partial or agent-relative “we-thinking” while justice represents an impartial, agent-neutral perspective.” (Laitinen & Pessi 2014, p. 2)

Evolving from hospitality to solidarity, the central characterization defining solidarity is the concept of community and communal interest. However, it is especially the approach to agency that is important in this argument: they are approaching the topic from both the individual agency and the community perspective. The communities and individuals within a national community are able to enact their agency through solidarity actions. More than hospitality, solidarity is the ultimate cosmopolitan principle as it is centered on individuals and on their moral agency to fulfill their hospitality duty towards others. In the next section, the final perspective is presented to build philosophical foundations for the theoretical framework.

2.3. Sen and the capabilities theory: an individual approach

In the first section, the basis for global justice theories has been set as an important influence for the justice institutions and ideology behind liberal democratic states. However, those definitions are focused on the institutions and states, and not on the individual approach to global justice. Global justice means that there are rights and responsibilities across and

(25)

beyond states, and, therefore, the role of individuals in global justice needs to be developed. When looking at the level of individual action in social justice, Sen’s theory of capabilities comes to the forefront (Sen 2009). Although this research does not focus on capabilities, it is written in the spirit of this understanding of social justice.

Capabilities theory focuses on the concept of opportunities available to individuals: “A person’s advantage in terms of opportunities is judged to be lower than that of another if she has less capability - less real opportunity - to achieve those things that she has reason to value” (Sen 2009, p. 231). Sen positions himself in contradiction with liberal theories by putting the focus of his theory on the opportunity to fulfill reasoned ends and the substantive freedom to achieve them rather than the liberal focus on means to perform social justice (Sen 2009). According to him, the valuation of comprehensive opportunities is linked to the ability to achieve various combinations of valued functionings (Sen 2009, p. 229). In his book The Idea of Justice (2009), Sen illustrates the capability of migrants related to the topic of integration. According to him, the capability of individuals to choose between different affiliations in cultural life is central to social justice in modern Western democracies. The freedom of migrants from non-Western countries to retain parts of the ancestral cultural traditions and lifestyles they value after they have resettled in a European country or America, is fundamental to a just settlement (2009, p. 230). When considering settlement, the theoretical framework of this thesis is founded on Sen’s definition that social justice corresponds to the freedom of opportunity and of decisions rather than factual or socio-economic achievements (Holscher & Bozalek 2012).

Interestingly, Fraser theorizes the responsibilities of citizens to provide more opportunities or capabilities in society. Fraser introduces the “all affected principle” in her approach to global justice (Fraser 2005, p. 82). According to her, “all those affected by a given social structure or institution have moral standing as subjects of justice in relation to it” (Fraser 2005). This moral standing is similar to the cosmopolitan moral duties. This argument entails that both members and non-members of a community are influenced by their political framing (or misframing). The creation of what she calls ‘meta-injustice’ is defined through the institutional process of denying justice claims in the community to non-members. A just society is a society that engages in correcting those injustices and all groups in society are concerned by the misuse and framing of justice.

In conclusion, the concept of capability allows the topic of cultural values and lifestyles to be included in the theories of global justice in a way it is not done in other approaches. The

(26)

capability theory helps this research to have a better understanding of approaches to social theories in the context of modern democracies, and the focus on the individual scale helps to frame the personal motivations and practices of stakeholders.

2.4. Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the philosophical context of this thesis: theories of global justice. Fundamentally, global social justice theories revolved around the assumption that we should live in a more just society. Liberal theories are the dominating approach in current western democracies and their institutions. They were described in their complexity, with freedom at the core of the mechanisms of global justice. Yet, cosmopolitan theories address institutional inequalities and they define more extensive responsibilities than liberal perspectives. The notion of hospitality - and even solidarity - is what drives actions in favor of global justice. Finally, the capability theory brings a unique assessment of global justice in practice: more than on opportunities, the focus lies on the real capability of individuals to carry out equal lives.

All those theories support an understanding of the reasons why citizens individually should help and why they do help. It provides philosophical context to the acts of solidarity that occur in society. Global justice is the essence of these acts, as it demonstrates the motivations, the goals and the positive impacts that they have on society. Whether they are collective or individual, acts of global justice both locally and abroad are crucial to start addressing global inequalities.

(27)

3. Theoretical framework

Hannah Arendt wrote about statelessness: “[it is] not the loss of specific rights, then, but the loss of a community willing and able to guarantee any rights whatsoever, has been the calamity that has befallen ever-increasing numbers of people” (Arendt 1958, p. 269 in Hyndman & Mountz 2008, p. 249). Her account of the loss of rights-based community questions whose duties it is to provide those rights. The theories that are presented in this section are from two corpora of literature: the theories of humanitarianism and the theories of civil citizenship. Both explore the mechanisms that are involved when individuals and groups decide to get involved in helping strangers. The first section explores the humanitarian theory as it conceptualizes humanitarian action, the ethical motivations, the modes of action, and the stakeholders. A working definition of the principle of charity is established, as charity is a fundamental concept to understand the mechanisms of volunteering and humanitarian action. Then in the next section, the crossroad between civil citizenship and volunteerism is introduced too. Providing an individual lens, they question the frontier between civic engagement and humanitarian action, as well as provide a critical stance towards the responsibilization of citizens in liberal democracies.

3.1. Humanitarianism theory

The ideas presented in this section are all linked to humanitarian action. Literature on humanitarianism describes practices and theories that have existed for centuries, which share the approach of being “dedicated to preserving and protecting human life” (Barnett 2014, p. 243). This section explores the ins and outs of humanitarian action, its ambition and its limits. Similarly to global social justice, humanitarianism is a “an interlocking set of norms, informal institutions, laws, and discourses that legitimate and compel various kinds of interventions to protect the world’s most vulnerable populations” (Barnett 2014, p243). The literature on these theoretical approaches extensively describes a field that is based on discourses of compassion, responsibility, and care.

3.1.1. Why? Theoretical perspectives on engaging in humanitarian action

There are different approaches to humanitarianism, both in theory and in practice. The first question that fundamentally distinguishes the different streams of thought within humanitarian theory is: why do stakeholders engage in humanitarian action?

(28)

The most common assumption agreed on is that humanitarian action is based on the principle of humanity; the common humanity of individuals motivates actions to reduce suffering. The moral reasoning is that “We should help anyone who is in need simply because they are our fellow human beings who are in need” (van Hooft 2011, p. 291).

However, there are two streams of thought that differentiate how this suffering is perceived. The first strand of thought is named emergency humanitarianism (Barnett 2014), needs-based humanitarianism (Malkki 2015), or traditional humanitarianism (Simm 2018), and focuses on the emergency and immediate needs of the recipients of humanitarian action as the focal point of their action. This approach to “reducing suffering” refers to taking action on the outcomes of catastrophes and of poverty. With the traditional approach, those emergencies around the world need to be addressed. This view of humanitarianism is essentially reacting to immediate needs perceived by stakeholders, which is embedded in programs that follow a set of rules and norms corresponding to those of the humanitarians.

As a critic of emergency humanitarianism, Van Hooft has a different approach to such motivation, and defines the principle of humanity as “often thought of as charity motivated by a spirit of concern and generosity rather than of obligation. In this form, the principle of humanity is considered supererogatory in the sense that it presents us with courses of action that it would be admirable to follow, but which are not obligatory” (van Hooft 2011, p. 292). According to his definition, this generosity is at the basis of the principle of charity and humanity. It is an action that is not motivated by obligation but is additional to fundamental moral obligations. Ethically, it means that those who do contribute to humanitarian action have no moral obligations towards the beneficiaries of humanitarian actions. This traditional view of humanitarianism is rooted in the first historical humanitarian actions that were carried out after the Second World War. However, it has since been criticised as a “sentimental, paternalistic, and privileged discourse of philanthropy and charity” (Simm 2018, p263).

The second approach to humanitarianism has multiple names too: alchemist humanitarianism (Barnett 2014), rights-based humanitarianism (Malkki 2015), and human rights-humanitarianism (Simm 2018).

In this strand of humanitarianism, the motivations are also based on the goal of saving lives. However, when it is compared with emergency humanitarianism, it follows a set of principles that are less binding and adapted to the socio-economic, cultural, and political context of humanitarian action. There are two qualifying characteristics to focus on when defining this approach. First, whatever the situation in which humanitarian action is taking place in, stakeholders look for human responsibility (Simm 2018, p. 264). This quest for responsibility is

(29)

actually looking for accountability within humanitarian action and in the political context in which it operates. Secondly, this approach to humanitarianism “treats politics as a necessary and at times even a welcome feature of humanitarian action” (Barnett 2014, p. 243). The motivation behind humanitarian action is to understand the root causes of suffering and inequality. It considers the recipients of humanitarian action situated within the local and global political ecology and focuses on their rights rather than their needs.

However, there is some critique to this approach, as Calhoun believes, there is a disciplinary and definition barrier to rights-based humanitarianism. He sets a disciplinary barrier between humanitarianism on the one hand and human rights and development on the other hand. According to Calhoun, this barrier raises the question if traditional humanitarianism should be considered as a way forward, as the motivation to reduce immediate suffering is too distant from the goals of human rights and development - improving the human condition. Moreover, Calhoun believes that humanitarian action is fundamentally linked to the principle of neutrality, unlike human rights or development (Calhoun 2008).

Van Hooft also agrees to a certain extent with the argument that humanitarian action is incompatible with long term goals of human rights and development. He criticizes the idea at the foundation of the two approaches to humanitarianism - one focussing on emergency and the other on rights. According to van Hooft, it would mean that humanity and justice would falsely be assumed in opposition (van Hooft 2011). For him, justice seems to integrate the definition of humanity:

“[justice] urges us to assist the poor – whether their plight results from natural disasters or from systemic economic and political factors – because their poverty is a violation of their human rights or the result of the failure on the part of rich countries and peoples to fulfil their positive and negative duties of providing fair and appropriate opportunities for economic and political advancement to the poor” (van Hooft 2011, p292)

Considering this definition of justice, the concept of humanity is not relevant to humanitarian action as it is included in it. Nevertheless, he suggests that humanitarian action cannot be founded on this conception of justice because it is not what it aims for. Even if the second approach to human rights-based humanitarianism is a step towards justice-based action, the core ideology of humanitarianism is embedded in the conceptual opposition between the principle of humanity - that entails a moral hierarchy between those who help and those who are helped - and the principle of justice - that supports broader societal implications to address structural and systemic issues of poverty and inequality.