"El mundo debe enterarse" : on settling and settling in : refugee youth integration in Ecuador

(1)

i.

“El mundo debe enterarse”

On Settling and Settling in; Refugee Youth

Integration in Ecuador

Master Thesis | Valentine Sergon

International Development Studies |Graduate School of Social Sciences June 29, 2018

(2)

ii.

Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

Valentine Sergon | 11618566 vsergon@gmail.com Supervisor: Christien Klaufhus

Second Reader: Josh Maiyo

_____________________________

The graphic on the cover was taken from HIAS’ Passover refugee campaign. “El mundo debe enterarse” translates to “The world should know”.

“El mundo debe enterarse”

On Settling and Settling in; Refugee Youth Integration in Ecuador

June 29, 2018

(3)

Dedication

i. I dedicate this humble work to the radiant souls who gave their time and their energy to speak with me, who said yes to a stranger asking them personal questions, and who did so

unflinchingly. No puedo agradecerles suficientemente; espero que este proyecto refleja sus palabras, sus realidades, y sus caminos. Gracias, gracias, gracias.

(4)

ii. Thank you to my incredible advisor, Christien Klaufus, who took on this unknown quantity, and helped me create something I’m proud of. For pushing me to be more creative, more thoughtful, and more intentional about this project, I thank you.

Thank you Chop, for helping me with my translations; thank you for being my ride-or-die, always. Love you.

And to my family, for everything that I am, for all the ways that you never fail to act in love, this is for you. Mommy. Linda. Jacqui. Cathy. Timmy. Nicholas. Josie. Asanteni – I love you all.

(5)

Abstract

iii. This project endeavors to explore what it means to begin a new life as a refugee in Ecuador. Though many integration theories abound, few focus on young refugee integration and few highlight how refugees integrate into countries in the Global South, despite the reality that most refugees worldwide are being hosted by Southern nations. Ecuador, then, with a very progressive migratory legal framework serves as the case study to explore the integration journey of young refugees along the lines of Host Community Conditions and the Institutional Landscape. These latter concepts are used to explore the structural and relational aspects of integration. Part of the aim of this project, then, was to explore how these legal guarantees perform within the lives of the people they aim to empower.

Methodologically, this project centered the voices of participants and, where possible, allowed them to lead the conversation. These conversations took the form of semi-structured interviews and life histories, as well as institutional practices observations, secondary research on the juridical and social context of Ecuador, and interviews with high-level staff of various refugee advocacy NGOs in Quito and Guayaquil. Taken together, several threads began to emerge. Though some participants had differing views on what it meant to integrate, nearly all of them placed tremendous value on being able to find dignifying work, something that was nearly impossible to accomplish in Ecuador. Most refugees expressed feeling vulnerable and alienated, within social, professional, and legal spheres, because they were refugees, because of their particular nationalities. The findings from this Southern country, then, demand that academic thinkers and settlement practitioners alike address the economic and the social realities facing young refugees. Though these realities are difficult to ‘solve’, this research suggests that there are concrete actions that advocacy groups and state bodies can take to make integration journeys in Ecuador more welcoming, compassionate, and humane.

Keyworks: refugees; integration journey; south-south migration; Host Community Conditions;

(6)

iv. Dedication………...………….……….…i Acknowledgements………..ii Abstract………...………iii Table of Contents………...……….iv List of Acronyms………...………...viii List of Figures……….ix 1. Introduction...………...1

1.1 Global Refugee Context……….2

1.2 Refugees in Ecuador………..3

1.3 The Ecuadorian Case, Relevance………...5

1.4 Thesis Structure……….7

2. Theoretical Framework………9

2.1 A Process, A Journey……….9

2.2 Host Community Conditions………...10

2.2.1 Citizenship and Rights………..10

2.2.2 Housing and Employment……….………11

2.2.3 Language and Safety……….………15

2.3 The Institutional Landscape……….18

2.3.1 Bonding, Bridging, Linking………..18

2.4 Nuances of South-South Migration…...………...………...20

2.5 Research Question and Conceptual Scheme………22

2.5.1 Research Question………22

2.5.2 Elements of an Integration Journey………..23

3. Ecuador, National and International Context………...………..25

3.1 Political Timelines………...25

3.1.1 Political Timeline, International Agreements………...25

3.1.2 Political Timeline, National Commitments………..26

(7)

4.2 Research Location………41 4.3 Research Design………...43 4.4 Research Methods………43 4.4.1 Semi-Structured Interview………44 4.4.2 Life Histories………44 4.4.3 Institutional Interviews……….45 4.5 Sampling Method………...46 4.6 Data Analysis………...47 4.7 Quality Criteria……….………...48

4.8 Ethical Considerations and Limitations………...49

4.9 Concluding Remarks………50

5. Host Community Conditions……….51

5.1 Citizenship and Rights……….51

5.1.1 Healthcare……….51

5.1.2 Education………..54

(8)

vi.

5.2 Employment………58

5.3 Housing………61

5.4 Security………65

5.5. Language……….67

5.6 Latino Cultural Closeness………68

5.7 Conclusions………..69

Profiling a Journey, Anas………...71

6. The Institutional Landscape………...72

6.1 Bonding Connections………...73

6.2 Bridging Connections………..78

6.3 Linking Connections………81

6.4 Conclusions………..84

Profiling a Journey, Juan………86

7. Integration………..87

7.1 Expectations of Life in Ecuador………..87

7.2 Definitions of Integration………88

7.3 Initial Desire to Integrate……….89

7.4 Integration Support and Barriers………..90

7.5 Sense of Integration……….90

7.5.1 Little Sense of Integration……….90

7.5.2 Relative Sense of Integration………91

7.5.3 High Sense of Integration……….92

7.6 Desire to Migrate……….93

7.7 Conclusions……….94

7.8 An Integration Journey………94

Profiling a Journey, Manuel………..97

(9)

List of Figures

ix. Figure A – Elements of an Integration Journey; conceptual scheme designed by author

Figure B – Asylum and Visa Options in Ecuador – designed and compiled by author Figure C – Map of Ecuador, take from Ezilon, edited by author using Google Maps Figure D – Social Mapping Tool example from Life History; co-created by author and participant

(12)

(13)

1 Journey Mercies

Human beings are infinitely complicated. We exist as whole, singular individuals with our own private thoughts and desires; we grow as members of families, in relationship with those around us, and we develop as part of communities, where our values, our moralities, and our sense of self take shape. Our home – our town, our region, our country – and the elements that make it up – the languages we speak, the customs we practice, those things we find

acceptable and those we find insulting – color in our every nook and cranny. Over time, over a lifetime, our home forges our very identity.

That said, homes are not perfect. Sometimes they are plagued by violence, sometimes people in our home use power to enrich themselves, to deprive others, or to hurt others. Sometimes, our home society cannot accept a part of who we are – our religion, our gender identity, our outspoken political beliefs; sometimes, we find ourselves having to flee our home – packing a hasty bag, running from threat, running to live.

We undertake a journey – a physical one – to find safety. This journey may be on foot, it may involve a bus, a plane, or a clandestine swim; it may be alone, it may be with loved ones, it may be alongside strangers. It is always dangerous. The lucky ones arrive safely in a place that recognizes their right to seek refuge there, a place that guarantees their rights and helps them to settle. The lucky ones have the luxury of imagining a future where they can stay, live, and build a life in this new place.

But even the lucky ones cannot rest. They must now undertake another – much less physical – journey. They are a person fully formed by their home, now living in someone else’s. They encounter different ways of speaking, relating, and being; this new strange place labels them as the stranger. Everything that formed them, all living elements of their home that they know as normal, must now be revisited: what is normal in this new place? How do I fit in? If I do this, do I mark myself as someone who does not belong? Just after their journey to safety, this person must embark on a journey to live, a journey to integrate.

This integration journey is often fraught. It can be full of uncertainties, fear, disappointment; it can also be full of happy surprises, laughter, and freedom. It is, however, always

complicated and often long-lasting. For those fleeing their country and seeking refuge in another, this integration journey is both intricate and frustrating, ugly and bright, darkness and rebirth.

(14)

Chapter 1: Introduction, 2

1

Introduction

1.1 Global Refugee Context

Refugee migration is a popular topic. News coverage follows a seemingly endless flow of people from places as disparate as Libya, the United States, Bangladesh, and many more. The movement of people is nothing new – in fact, many would argue that movement is part of our humanness, as far back as history can go.

The migration and integration, of refugees remains worthy of study for several reasons: at a human level, we must ask, what happens when a person can no longer turn to their state for protection, or when a person needs protection from the state itself – what structures exist, and what others should, to serve this person? This question gets to the heart of the relationship between an individual and the state’s obligations to its people. Another fundamental reason to study refugees is that there are so many of them: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that, in 2017, there were 22.5 million refugees worldwide, nearly half of whom were children.1 That this many people are seeking protection outside of their homes demands both attention and a continuous, vigorous discussion about their integration in host countries.

Though many may have dreams of seeking asylum in rich Northern countries – Germany, Canada, Australia – the reality is that most will not be able to; instead, most people claim asylum in the closest safe place, usually a neighbor. This is clear when we examine the ten countries that hosted more than half of the world’s refugees in 2015: most seeking asylum were from just next door. To name a few, Jordan and Turkey hosted mostly Syrians, 2.7 million and 2.5 million respectively, while Pakistan hosted 1.6 million – mostly Afghan – refugees, and Iran welcomed 980,000 mostly Afghani and Iraqi refugees.2

1_{UNHCR (B).}

2_{Amnesty International, 2016.}

* The header quotations provided in the headers throughout this text were translated into English either by a contracted translator (for Arabic interviews) or by myself (for Spanish interviews). The original text of the Spanish quotations is provided in the appendices.

(15)

Chapter 1: Introduction, 3

 Because there is no way to return back to our country, so we just have to build ourselves from the beginning in this country. You cannot build yourself and destroy at another time, so you just have to build yourself forever in this country. And be part of these people and this community.  - Ali, 17, Yemen

The current panic, then, about refugees ‘invading’ the likes of Europe, North America, and Australia is distracting and myopic. We should be having more discussions about Southern countries playing host to Southern refugees – as they are currently doing, in large numbers and with much less hysteria.

1.2 Refugees in Ecuador

Also missing from these much-needed conversations about those seeking refuge in the South, is the case of Ecuador, currently estimated to host nearly a quarter of a million refugees, the largest number of refugees in Latin America.3 To be clear, Ecuador does not simply host the largest number of refugees relative to its population; in the absolute sense, it hosts a higher number of refugees than all other Latin American countries. Brazil, with a population more than ten times the size of Ecuador, hosted just over 45,000 people in 20164. Colombia, long a producer of refugees, has received thousands of Venezuelans in recent years; in 2017, the government

estimated that there were 300,000 Venezuelans within its borders, but it is not clear how many of those are refugees, how many have other kinds of status, and how many are in transit5.

Though not on the scale of the Middle Eastern hosts mentioned above, Ecuador is welcoming a significant number of people searching for legal protection and an untold number of people who fled to Ecuador but who do not know about the refugee process, or who are too scared of

government officials to apply for asylum; the figures also fail to include the number of people who were denied asylum and thus in some kind of limbo. Ecuador has its own integration challenges and strategies that are well-worth studying.6

Since 2000, Ecuador has played host to thousands of Colombian refugees who were fleeing an uptick in violence related to government efforts to curb both coca production and the conflicts between various armed groups. There thus exists a nearly 20-year history of Colombian migration

3_{Asylum Access (B).}

4_{UNHCR (D), “Reporting, Brazil.}

5_{UNHCR (C), “Grateful Colombian Refugee Opens Home to Venezuelans in Need.”} 6_{ACNUR 2016, 2.}

(16)

Chapter 1: Introduction, 4

and integration within Ecuador, and it is now possible to study Colombians’ integration journeys, their challenges and successes, and what lessons can be gleaned.

In the past few years, as the Venezuelan economy crumbled, there has been a marked increase in Venezuelans entering Ecuador, though to a very different government reception than in the case of Colombian refugees; in fact, government policy has all but barred Venezuelans from being able to obtain and maintain legal status within Ecuador. Many, then, use Ecuador as a transit country on their way south to Peru, Chile, and the like, while an unknowable number remain in Ecuador without status.7

Given that Ecuador requires visas of very few countries in the world, there has also recently been a growing number of non-Latino refugees, from places such as Yemen, Syria, and other non-Latino countries. This phenomenon is notable because there already exists a strong history of Arab emigration to and integration in Ecuador, dating back to the 1800s.8 This could affect the networks that Middle Eastern refugees tap into upon arrival, as well affect how foreign or strange Middle Easterners are perceived by Ecuadorians.

It is thus very important to begin to fortify the academic literature of non-Colombian refugee integration processes. As a case study, then, Ecuador provides the important opportunity to be able to explore integration within both Spanish-speaking and non-Spanish speaking communities.

There are many aspects of Ecuadorian refugee law that make it a strong choice for asylum. Not only does it recognize the right to refuge, as per the 1951 Refugee Convention, but it is also a signatory to the Cartagena Declaration, which recognizes refugees who are fleeing generalized violence within their country; this has historically been applied to Colombian refugee cases.9

Finally, Ecuador passed its Human Mobility Law in early 2017, which granted a host of rights to refugees and other migrants, such as the decriminalization of those with irregular status, the right to free public health and pre-university education, as well as the right to a national identification

7_{“Las Restricciones Migratorias no Frenan el Ingreso de Venezolanos,” El Universo.} 8_{Almerida, 93.}

(17)

Chapter 1: Introduction, 5

document.10 These incredibly progressive legal decisions – in the middle of a season wherein thousands of refugees are entering the country – bear studying. This is especially true when compared with the increasing news stories about insecurity along Ecuador’s border with Colombia, which may lead the Ecuadorian public to form negative associations about foreigners.11

Taking together the legal framework that welcomes refugees, the various groups of people that choose to seek refuge in Ecuador and, considering both the historical driving forces and the differentiated government response to their arrival, Ecuador serves as a unique and illuminating case study.

1.3 The Ecuadorian Case, Relevance

In summary, it is important to study the Ecuadorian case for several reasons. Ecuador is, and has been, welcoming refugees without much international fanfare – despite its limited resources; this model could provide vital lessons that could apply to other Latin American contexts. The unique opportunity provided by hosting almost entirely Spanish-speaking refugees is that it allows for the exploration of important questions: if a refugee does not need to learn the host language upon arrival, if that refugee is of an urban background and settles in an urban part of Ecuador, what exactly are the barriers to integration?

Though there is ample academic research on integration theories and the various elements necessary for a smooth transition, a few key aspects are missing, which can be found within the Ecuadorian case. These include the form that integration takes when the host country is

Southern, with limited resources, and how this form is affected when dealing with young

refugees. Finally, being a Southern country that hosts a refugee population that mostly speaks the language, and a smaller population that does not, equips Ecuador to provide crucial lessons about integration.

This is also important because migration is dynamic; though it might change, it will likely never stop, and it is academics’ role to continue to ask the important questions. Furthermore, the lack of literature on non-Colombian refugees may become an issue when more non-Colombians

10_{Organization for American States.}

(18)

Chapter 1: Introduction, 6

enter. For example, if the Venezuelan situation does not improve, this could critically affect Ecuador. In fact, between January 2017 and January 2018, 350,000 Venezuelans entered Ecuador, and almost 280,000 left, suggesting that Ecuador is serving as a country of transit for some, but also that some 70,000 Venezuelans stayed in the country.12 This does not mean that they became refugees – but maybe some of them would eventually claim refugee status. Whether they enter the Ministry and demand their right to protection, or whether they remain fearfully in the shadows, these people exist, they are living in the country, and knowing more about their integration journey is vital – both for Ecuador to be able to meet its legal duties to refugees, and so that their lives can be improved. Their stories cannot remain invisible.

That Colombian, Venezuelan, and non-Latino people are seeking refuge in Ecuador raises some interesting questions about the integration journeys of groups with such disparate historical relationships with and reception by the Ecuadorian state. This only highlights the importance of hearing directly from a range of refugees about their integration experiences.

This research focused primarily on young refugees, specifically people over the age of 18 and under 35. This research used a wider definition to capture the range of integration experiences but is not able to explore the experiences of child refugees because of the practical and ethical challenges. This demographic is important because youth is a period of transition, one that is highly context-specific, often personal, and is very difficult to strictly demarcate. Nearly half of all refugees are children, so they will soon enter the age range of this study and the lessons will apply to them. Furthermore, global demographics skew towards the young: more than 2.5 billion of the world’s people are 20 years or under; almost 3.2 billion are 25 and under; and almost 3.8 billion are 30 and under.13 These figures combine to make young refugees’ integration journeys particularly urgent. Unfortunately, throughout the background research it became clear that there is very little research on young refugee integration, despite the reality that, in 2013, nearly 24% of refugees entering Ecuador were under 18.14 This is instructive because, despite being a

12_{“Las Restricciones Migratorias no Frenan el Ingreso de Venezolanos,” El Universo.} 13_{US Census Bureau.}

(19)

Chapter 1: Introduction, 7

numerical reality, there remains very little research on young refugees, including hard data on how many have landed in Ecuador.

In sum, then, Ecuador currently hosts the largest refugee population on the continent and its legal framework, at least on paper, prioritizes the rights and protections of refugees; most of those seeking refuge hail from urban Colombia, choose to stay in urban Ecuador, and do not intend to return home. Recently, the number of Venezuelan and non-Latino refugees has been growing, but there is scant literature about their – or generally young people’s – integration journeys. Given these realities, this research focused on young refugees of varied nationalities who landed in Quito and Guayaquil, the two largest cities.

Given Ecuador’s migration background, its reception and integration history, and the existing gaps, the following research questions emerged,

1.4 Thesis Structure

This thesis is divided into eight chapters. The first introduced the topic of study, reviewing the basic refugee landscape globally and in Ecuador specifically, before concluding with the

relevance of studying young refugee integration in Ecuador. The second chapter will review the theoretical underpinnings of the research project, as well as the ways it can be applied in the Ecuadorian case; it will also introduce and explain the conceptual scheme used in the design of this project. The third chapter will introduce the empirical context of Ecuador, of the refugee flows into the country, as well as the legal and state responses. The fourth chapter will go over the methodology and research designs of this thesis project, as well as the ethical considerations

How do young, self-supporting refugees experience integration in Ecuador as a journey and what role do Host Community Conditions and the Institutional Landscape play?

 How do young refugees define integration and is integration something they seek?  How did the Institutional Landscape affect their integration journey?

 How did Host Community Conditions affect their integration journey?

 What role did the refugee application process play in their integration journey?  What role did language play in their integration journey?

(20)

Chapter 1: Introduction, 8

and limitations. The final chapters, chapters five, six, and seven, will focus on the empirical findings, and chapter eight will conclude this study, answering the research question, as well offering some policy recommendations.

Throughout this text, all references to participants use code names and any potentially identifying information has been changed.

A brief note on terminologies is important here. At the UN level, a distinction is made between refugees (those accepted by the host country to have “a well-founded fear of persecution” due to their race, religion, nationality, politics, or social group membership) and asylum-seekers (those seeking to be accepted on said basis)15; at the Inter-American level, though, refugee is used to describe the admission of someone into the host state on the basis of seeking refuge and the required protections and protocols to be followed. Because this project endeavors to be context-specific, and for linguistic ease, this project will follow the Inter-American protocol in simply using the term refugee. The terms refugee, refugee applicant, asylum, and asylum-seeker will thus be used interchangeably throughout this work. Additionally, though there is a robust academic discussion about refugees in Ecuador, there is scant research on non-Colombian refugees. In fact, the terms refugees and Colombians are used almost synonymously; whenever referencing the relevant academic literature, I will do the same.

(21)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 9

 After having a plan, a dream, a life, you arrive at a limbo where you have no work, no nothing – you’re just waiting for life to bring you something  -Jose, 25, Colombia

2

Theoretical Framework

Integration is a slippery concept. It has been discussed, both within and without academia at length, but nonetheless its explicit definition – if there is one – often remains ambiguous. The following chapter will explore the some of the key thinkers on integration theory, and will bring together various parts of their thinking, in the synthesis of this research project’s theoretical background.

2.1 A Process, a Journey

Almost any discussion that involves integration, will likely use the term process. Integration process, migration processes, long-lasting process, socialization process – these are just some of the terms that appear in the literature.

Friedrich Heckman’s Theory of Social Integration is widely cited as one of the key theories behind refugee integration. Within his 2005 Integration and Integration Policies, he uses the word ‘process’ 74 times in 278 pages.16_{Ager and Strang, in their landmark piece developing an}

operational definition of refugee integration used the term ‘process’ 18 times in 26 pages.17

Fokkema and Haas, who also play a significant role in the refugee integration discussions, used the term 11 times in 24 pages.18 Though mere numbers cannot tell us how deeply an author engages with a concept, it remains notable that these integration thinkers used the term so frequently; that does say something about which aspects of the definition are the most relevant. A process is something that takes time, something that is gradual, and something whose speed remains vague. The word ‘process’ also seems to suggest linearity: all who partake in this process move in a straight, onward direction, and eventually arrive at the same place. This research posits that integration is highly individual and unique; it is not something that can be replicated identically or whose experience can be predicted; I posit that because integration cannot be reduced to one definition or fool-proof recipe, it is more appropriate to use the word

16_{Heckman, 2005.} 17_{Ager and Strang, 2008.} 18_{Fokkema and Haas, 2011.}

(22)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 10

‘journey’. An integration journey is person-specific, it may involve challenges that divert a person, or move them out of a forward motion; a person on an integration journey may never fully ‘arrive’. Though no two integration journeys are the same, I argue that there are common themes that rise to the surface when exploring people’s integration journeys from a holistic and three-dimensional lens. What follows will be an analysis of the major integration thinkers and how elements of their theories can be used to explore integration as a journey.

2.2 Host Community Conditions

On a basic level, journeying involves movement through physical space. For refugees, part of their integration journey may exist on a metaphorical or emotional level, but the environment through which they pass is real and impactful. Within this research project, I will use the term Host Community Conditions to describe key factors that form a part of the place they land, specifically Citizenship and Rights, housing and employment, and language and safety. These key factors exist in intersectional relationship with each other, so though they are considered here individually, it is important to note that the overall effect is created by their interplay. 2.2.1 Citizenship and Rights

One foundational realm, which Ager and Strang point to, is that of Citizenship and Rights. They argue that, before a country can determine its integration policy, it must first reckon with its own national identity, what it means to be of that place.19_{A society must decide on the core values}

that constitute being a citizen, and these may include tenants such as justice, independence, equality, human dignity, and so on.20 These discussions are vital because once a country articulates these fundamental values, governing bodies must then be held accountable to protecting them21; furthermore, once core elements are detailed, what are the rights of each citizen, and what are the rights, say, of a refugee and future citizen?22 What responsibilities does a citizen, or a refugee, have? A discussion on citizenship, then, necessitates discussions about

19_{Ager and Strang, 173.} 20_{Ibid, 175.}

21_{Ibid, 175.} 22_{Ibid, 176.}

(23)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 11

who is included in these universal values – must someone be a citizen to enjoy human dignity or does that person simply need to exist within the state’s territorial boundaries?

Though Anger and Strang’s framework is heavily embedded within the British context, the authors argue that that is only logical. They note that this is the purpose – and the wide applicability – of their integration framework. Because ideas of national identity, rights, and citizenship vary between countries, before developing any integration framework, this contextual information would have to be rigorously discussed, and the fruits of that national discussion would then inform the other interdependent elements of the integration framework.23 In including this, Anger and Strang are essentially mandating that the integration framework be tailored to the particular country and refugee population.

In the Ecuadorian context, though the government has mandated that there are certain basic rights to which refugees in Ecuador are entitled, such as healthcare, a national identification card, and pre-university education, there are still many aspects of life to which, both legally and

simply in practice, refugees do not have the same right as Ecuadorians. Furthermore, because in Anger and Strang’s UK case study all the participants had received positive refugee decisions and could stay in England indefinitely, this begs the question of what kind of discussion should be taking place in Ecuador surrounding people who have not yet settled their refugee status, who have no intention of staying permanently, or who are present currently, but who will be forced to leave. These are all questions that would be part of the Citizenship and Rights domain within an Ecuadorian context and which are helpful to consider when adapting Anger and Strang’s

framework to those experiencing integration in Ecuador.

Thus, though citizenship may seem a higher-level concern, as Ager and Strang show, ideas of belonging and identity actually work at the most basic level of integration, by informing what sort of spaces or services are accessible to refugees on their integration journeys in a specific place.

2.2.2 Housing and Employment

(24)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 12

On a more practical level, refugees along their integration journey must almost always confront the reality of needing a job and a place to live. Heckman, within his Theory of Social Integration, points to employment and housing as two of a range of factors forming structural integration, what he defined as the process of acquiring the status and rights within the “core institutions” of the host country.24

Employment, as the part of integration that has been the most researched, is often pointed to as providing a variety of integration benefits, including meeting members of the local population, economic independence, future planning, encouraging self-reliance, and the opportunity to practice language skills, among others.25 Finding a job, then, is not only key to making ends meet, but is also a vital part of being and being seen as belonging in this new place.

Of course, for many refugees entering a new country, it can be difficult to find work right away, for a whole host of reasons; these can include cultural or linguistic unfamiliarity, not knowing the job landscape, needing to care for family, or lingering trauma. Furthermore, as Ager and Strang note, though refugees are often more educated when compared to other immigrant groups, because they did not bring their qualifications, or because these qualifications are not considered valid in the host country, many refugees cannot get work easily, or cannot get work in their field of training. Under-employment, then, is fairly common in refugee populations.26

Ager and Strang’s study took place in the UK, where there existed a firm state apparatus providing services to refugees, including housing and cash support27_{; thus, not finding work}

immediately after arrival did not mean that families were in an entirely desperate financial situation. In countries where this inability to work is coupled with a lack of a social safety net for recently arrived refugees, the task of supporting oneself or one’s family becomes more

complicated and urgent.

As a medium-income Southern country, Ecuador must still address a variety of human development issues, including the fact that one-fourth of its population live below the poverty

24_{Heckman, 12.} 25_{Ager and Strang, 170.} 26_{Ibid. 170.}

(25)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 13

line.28_{There are thus very few social safety nets available to Ecuadorians, let alone refugees.}

Refugees seeking to integrate in Ecuador are quickly faced with the reality that, despite having had to flee violence or whatever other trauma was a part of their old life, they must now quickly find a way to make a living.

The Ecuadorian refugee application process is a long, bureaucratic one during which applicants do not receive economic support from the Ecuadorian government. Many thus turn to informal work to survive, and many refugees report experiencing workplace exploitation.29 The

desperation to make ends meet, coupled with the discrimination that many face, means that many refugees must accept lower wages and more workplace uncertainty. In fact, among those

interviewed by Ortega and Ospina in their study on urban refugees in Quito and Guayaquil, 90% had only a verbal work contract and 70% described their relationship with their employer as one of dependence. Half of those interviewed expressed having difficulty finding a job due to discrimination.30 While many Ecuadorians also work informally and may also experience some level of uncertainty, literature Colombian refugees shows this is exacerbated by the fact that they receive lower salaries – or are simply not hired – than their Ecuadorian counterparts.31 Refugees, then, are in the disadvantaged position of needing to support themselves but struggling to do so because of systematic discrimination predicated on widespread negative stereotypes.

Needing housing is another basic element of a refugee’s integration journey. A house is, of course, a physical structure that provides shelter from the elements, that ideally allows a person to access running water and to cook for themselves; for any human being, this is a need. In their discussion with refugees, though, Ager and Strang found that, more than a form of shelter, refugees valued housing as sites of social and cultural interaction and learning.32_{As new arrivals,}

feeling connected in some way to the surrounding people, to be able to engage in cultural or social exchange, seemed to contribute most to feelings of being ‘settled’ in a community. A final element of housing that was often mentioned by refugees was feeling safe and secure in their

28_{CIA World Factbook, “Ecuador.”} 29_{Saez, et al, 29.}

30_{Ortega and Ospina, 130-131.} 31_{Ospina and Santacruz, 40.} 32_{Ager and Strang, 171.}

(26)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 14

housing and their wider neighborhood.33_{This makes sense on a basic level – all human beings}

desire to feel safe in their home – but is especially logical when contextualized within a

population that literally fled their last home because it was unsafe. As such, the vulnerability of the refugee population makes the social, cultural, and physical elements of housing access more salient.

Because housing is not provided to refugees in Ecuador, and though many refugee advocacy organizations try to provide material and other kinds of housing assistance, newly arrived refugees must independently find and pay for their housing. Additionally, because financial assistance is few and far between, and assuming that a refugee has no outside assistance, housing is contingent upon having some kind of work to generate an income, as well as finding a

responsible and ethical landlord willing to rent out a safe unit to a foreigner. This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the barriers to a refugee being able to own their own home – access to capital, status, under or unemployment, and the like – are so high as to be essentially insurmountable; as Ospina and Santacruz found in their study on Colombian refugees, only one percent of those interviewed owned their own home.34_{As steady employment is a challenge for}

many refugees, maintaining housing is a near-constant challenge within their integration journey. Many refugees also reported experiencing discrimination while trying to find housing; 80% of those interviewed by Ospina and Ortega expressed facing difficulties in finding housing, and the majority ascribed the reasons for these difficulties to their Colombian identity.35_Those

interviewed stated that Ecuadorians seeking to rent out rooms or apartments would, when they became aware that the applicant was Colombian, resort to a range of tactics to reduce the likelihood of the applicant being able to move in, including demanding several months’ deposit in advance, demanding that the applicant agree to a host of arbitrary and stringent house rules, or requiring a(n Ecuadorian) guarantor to be liable for the applicant, in case they entered into arrears36. A further complicating factor is elevated housing prices in cities and the sometimes-paradoxical lack of services. Quito and Guayaquil, the two most discussed cities for urban

33_{Ager and Strang, 172.} 34_{Ospina and Santacruz, 47.} 35_{Ortega and Ospina, 70.} 36_{Ortega and Ospina, 72.}

(27)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 15

refugees, serve as clarifying examples. Quito, the capital, has the smaller population; rental prices are lower, at the same time that public transportation is stronger, so refugees can live farther away but still be able to commute to the center, for work or leisure. That said, produce is more expensive in Quito. Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest city, has a weaker transportation

infrastructure, and rental prices are much higher, and may not even include basic services like potable water. Fresh food, though, is found at cheaper prices than in Quito.37 Refugees seeking housing in Ecuador’s two main cities, then, have to contend with different challenges.

2.2.3 Language and Safety

Anger and Strang argue that two barriers that remained unacknowledged in integration

discussions were language and cultural knowledge – to communicate with the local population – and safety and security – to help them begin to settle.38

Gaining a working level of the local language is something that an individual refugee needs to devote themselves to, but it is also something that the state can work to address, by providing free and accessible language classes, for example, or by making it mandatory that health providers give out information in multiple languages.39 Translation and interpreting services have been shown to be critical in the early settlement periods, so that refugees can begin to get a lay of the land. More than explicit translation, though, Anger and Strang found that their

respondents appreciated having an avenue to understanding cultural expectations in their host communities; respondents also noted the “value of sharing their own culture with others, thereby promoting mutual understanding,” as well as the value of maintaining their own traditional customs.40 Refugees, then, appreciate it when they can begin to understand how this new country and culture work, and where they can begin to see themselves in it.

Some academics argue that learning the local language can facilitate social interactions, thereby protecting mental health; it can promote independence, and it can foster the attainment of untapped social resources.41 Other academics argue that, though this may be the popular

37_{Interview, Gómez de la Torre.} 38_{Anger and Strang, 181.} 39_{Ibid, 182.}

40_{Ager and Strang, 183.} 41_{Beiser and Hou, 1323.}

(28)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 16

narrative – one that offers inclusion if you simply learn the language, and one that refugees themselves may accept – the reality is much blurrier. Language acquisition often promises employability, personal and academic growth, and future success42; in her research on Sudanese refugee women in the United States, Warriner shows that full societal participation does not automatically follow language proficiency, but that it is not clear what exactly refugees must do to access inclusion and belonging.43

This is an interesting thought because, in the British case that Ager and Strang studied, many refugees are non-British, non-English speakers, whereas in Ecuador, most of the refugees are Colombian or Venezuelan, and speak Spanish. Ecuador, then, serves as a unique case study because it begs the question of what kind of advantage exists in already speaking the local language, as well as of whether someone of a bordering country can be said to have cultural knowledge, despite whether or not they believe their two countries to be culturally similar. Does speaking Spanish allow refugees to connect with locals and to feel independent? Does it heighten the smaller cultural differences? Does it mark them as competition for jobs and other resources? Ecuador is particularly important because it hosts Latino and non-Latino refugees, making it a relevant case study for Anger and Strang’s integration framework, as applied in a non-British, non-English speaking country.

Anger and Strang also noted the need for safety and stability. For many, without a sense of physical safety, they could not feel integrated into their community; in fact, even the threat of violence affected participants’ community perceptions.44_{Of course, given the inherent violence}

of fleeing one’s homeland, a desire for safety as a first step to integration, is logical. Beyond the safety of a community, Anger and Strang, note the stability in being able to stay there.45

Essentially, the feeling of being safe, of getting to know their neighbors, and the stability of knowing that this will be their community and their neighbors indefinitely, was important for refugees to feel integrated.

42_{Warriner, 350.} 43_{ibid, 356.}

44_{Anger and Strang, 183-184.} 45_{Ager and Strang, 184.}

(29)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 17

Ecuador is an interesting place to explore this dimension, and it is interesting, once again, in different ways depending on the refugee population. For Colombians, safety may be a precarious notion because there is the distinct possibility that the very people who threatened their lives in Colombia, had also found their way to Ecuador – in which case, the logical response may be to keep moving – neighborhoods, houses, even cities – allowing refugees to have perceived safety, but not stability. For the Venezuelan refugee population, their arrival in Ecuador may mean safety (from starvation, from violence) but, due to the Ecuadorian state’s treatment of

Venezuelan refugees, they may not have the stability of knowing that they can legally stay in the country, and so may have to change cities, or even countries. For the non-Latino refugee

population in Ecuador, who may have fled war or other kinds of violence, they may have the safety of knowing that they are far away from that strife – and perhaps the assurance of a network of new and older compatriots, in the case of Arabs. They may have the stability of knowing that they can likely stay, but they may lack the stability that comes from being in a culture that you know and can navigate linguistically and culturally. In this way, Ecuador serves as a singular microcosm in which to explore various integration theories.

Refugees along their journey to integration in Ecuador, then, are faced with a multitude of needs, some more urgent than others. Though each person will experience this journey differently, when looking at the bigger picture, there are some common elements – such as housing,

employment, a need for safety, and the importance of speaking the local language – that most, if not all, will have to confront. Of course, these categories are fluid and have mutually affective relationships between each other. A refugee’s housing can affect their safety, which can affect employment – all of which affect a person’s whole integration journey. It can be tricky to use these as the sole marker of integration because, in any society with residents of different socio-economic situations, some people will be un or under-employed, others will never have stable housing, some may never learn the language, and so on.46 The question then becomes, what are reasonable integration expectations of a newly arrived refugee population, and what are the expectations five, ten, or twenty years later? This question, though beyond the scope of this research - would be an important one for further study.

(30)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 18

2.3 The Institutional Landscape

On a slightly higher level of abstraction, journeying also includes the people who surround you, both those walking with you and those receiving you. They can ease the journey, by providing tips, suggestions, or a listening ear; or they can make it harder, by being hostile, unwelcoming, or challenging. Or perhaps, how they receive you is filtered through the additional barrier of not speaking the same language. Whether good, bad, or some shade in between, the people that refugees encounter while on their refugee journey, play an impactful role. As this research focused on analyzing personal connections, I will explore the various relationships participants described, whether they found these to be helpful, harmful or neutral to their integration journey; specifically, I looked to whether they were primarily facilitated through an institution.

Throughout this research, the term ‘institution’ will be used to describe a formal or informal, structured or unstructured organization, including bigger government bodies and refugee

advocacy organizations, but also smaller ones, like churches or community groups that organize get-togethers, workshops, or the like. I will refer to this as the realm of The Institutional

Landscape and it will include bonding institutions, bridging institutions, and linking institutions that participants credited with affecting their integration journey.

2.3.1 Bonding, Bridging, Linking

Ager and Strang point to the importance of social connections as a harbinger of the mutuality, the two-way nature, of true community integration and a feeling of belonging, as defined by their respondents.47 They defined this social connection domain to include bridges, bonds, and links. Bonds and bridges are terms borrowed from Robert Putnam’s Theory of Social Capital, which centers social networks (the bonds and bridges) as well as norms of reciprocity and

trustworthiness.48 For the purposes of this study, I operationalize social networks, instead of social capital. This is because trust and norms of reciprocity are difficult to measure; the focus of this project is whom a participant knows and relies upon, rather than whether or not they trust them, or eventually pay back the favor.

47_{Anger and Strang, 177-178.} 48_{Putnam, 143.}

(31)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 19

Bonds are described as relationships between members who are similar in some important way.49

This can be the same ethnic group, or it can be members of the same marginalized group, for example people from different countries who are refugees in Britain.50 Bonds can also be formed through refugee advocacy groups, composed of members of various countries, but which provide activities and spaces for refugees to come together and speak openly about their experiences. In any case, these bonds work to tie refugees to people with similar experiences, as they move through their integration journey. Within this research, I will focus on institutions that serve as bonding sites.

Bridges are those ties with the wider community, including those who may be dissimilar from refugees.51 Within their research Ager and Strang found that their respondents expressed greatly appreciating general friendliness from the people they saw daily; this included acts as small as being recognized and greeted by a neighbor.52 This idea was further strengthened when Ager and Strang studied associations between refugees’ ideas of quality of life. They found that it was the superficial bridges – connected to safety and security – rather than deeper interactions with the local community, that led people to feel positively about their quality of life.53 The sensation of being recognized as part of the neighborhood, and being acknowledged as such, mattered greatly to respondents along their integration journey. Within this research, I am particularly interested in institutions that serve as bonding sites.

The literature on the benefits and challenges to bridging and bonding are split; some argue that bonding can help marginalized communities by providing jobs for each other and can also make for an easier transition to the host country; others argue that bridging leads to assimilation, which allows a minority to become a part of society’s fabric, like anyone else.54

The final element of the Institutional Landscape, which Ager and Strang highlight, is the concept of links, defined as those links that connect refugees to various government structures, including

49_{Ibid, 143.}

50_{Anger and Strang, 178.} 51_{Putnam, 143.}

52_{Anger and Strang, 180.} 53_{Ibid, 180.}

(32)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 20

those specifically designed to assist them.55_{Depending on the country – and often the part of the}

country – refugee-sensitive services are an important part of the integration journey56; the challenges to providing these services can range from an individual provider, to a wider, structural problem. Certain countries, like Britain, have hefty state-wide structures devoted to settling refugees. Other countries, like Canada, have clear government policies – but nearly the entire integration system is powered by community organizations which, though perhaps receiving government funding, handle the implementation.57

In Ecuador, though the official government policy towards big-ticket items – education, health, the right to seek asylum – is explicitly stated and seemingly progressive, refugee advocacy groups carry out much of the orientation and integration work – and mostly through private funding. Those trying to integrate into Ecuadorian society may find themselves making

connections with various private, non-profit, and government entities, and subsequently creating relationships with similar and dissimilar people; though the impact of having more of one kind of connection than another is unclear, the reality remains that many refugees will experience one or more of these relationships along their integration journey.

Along their integration journey, then, refugees must grapple with the fundamental realities – elements such as housing, employment, safety, and language – that comprise their Host Community Conditions; they will also experience various social relationships, some of which may be formed through the Institutional Landscape. The interaction between the contextual realities of Ecuador and an individual’s linguistic and socio-economic profile, alongside their youth, come together to tell a vital and largely absent integration story.

2.4 Nuances of South-South Migration

Although the academic literature on refugee integration is varied and robust, and although there are many aspects that are transferable to the Ecuadorian context, it is also important to keep in mind the places where it is more difficult to apply, and where they may be gaps, as that is where

55_{Anger and Strang, 181.} 56_{Ibid, 181.}

(33)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 21

academics must focus their attention. This next section will be a summary of the key areas where the relevant literature raises questions within an Ecuadorian context.

Most refugees worldwide are from the South and flee to a fellow Southern country; how does this change the narrative for host countries – whose societies may struggle with competition for resources, affordable housing, dignifying work – and for refugees – who may be forced to become self-reliant faster than ideal considering their employment background, their linguistic ability, and their past trauma? Much of Western integration literature takes for granted that it is a Western country, with all the resources that entails, that is receiving either permanently resettled refugees or refugees who traversed dozens of borders to get themselves there. Given that there is little hope of most Southern countries becoming as rich as Western ones, this research project explores what it means for refugees to create a life in a neighboring, Southern country. Much of the literature also presupposes that the host community has a mostly formal work economy, and that refugees’ eventual goal (and reasonable expectation) is to enter it. What effect is had on integration when, as in Ecuador, the informal economy is large, when many even in the local population work within it, and where employers are under no obligation to provide long-term contracts for any employees? What role does employment play in integration if it is not reasonable in the context of the host country to expect stable employment?

For countries that host varied refugee populations, what effect is had on the integration journey when a country hosts a refugee population that speaks the local language and a refugee

population that does not? In Ecuador, which refugee populations are considered the ‘norm’ and how do institutional practices reflect this presumption? How are integration processes

experienced differently by non-Spanish speaking refugee populations and what strategies have these communities developed to carry on despite this? To what extent can these institutional practices be realistically addressed by state and non-governmental bodies?

Along the lines of language, and considering Anger and Strang’s emphasis on language ability and cultural competency, is there a way to complicate this idea further? Within Ecuador, how are Spanish-speaking refugees experiencing integration as compared to non-Spanish speakers; are there clear differences, with the Spanish-speakers having a marked advantage, as may be

(34)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 22

expected? Are Spanish-speaker treated badly because they are seen as viable competition for the few jobs and resources available to all?

Finally, in Ecuador’s refugee population, where years are spent waiting on a refugee decision, where people are unsure if they will be allowed to stay in the country or not, what does their integration journey look like when the possibility of them being able make Ecuador their home remains uncertain?

I recognize that simply taking on one of these questions in its entirety would be a massive undertaking. That said, this research project endeavors to bring forth important insights that will address parts of these questions as a means of building on the academic literature. The following section will outline this project’s conceptual scheme, reviewing how the relevant literature informed the thematic concepts behind this research project.

2.5 Research Question and Conceptual Scheme

2.5.1 Research Question

How do young self-supporting refugees experience integration in Ecuador as a journey and what role do Host Community Conditions and the Institutional Landscape play?

Sub-questions

 How do young refugees define integration and is integration something they seek?  How did the Institutional Landscape affect their integration journey?

 How did Host Community Conditions affect their integration journey?

 What role did the refugee application process play in their integration journey?  What role did language play in their integration journey?

This research question is particularly salient when viewed in light of the richness in integration theories that already exist; these theories take into account some of what are considered the most important elements of integration, such as housing and employment. They view integration from a systematic level and seem to seek a recipe for integration; this tactic is valuable as it is action-oriented and can provide important suggestions for government and non-governmental actors to improve their refugee reception programs. That said, there is a glaring lack of academic literature

(35)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 23

on integration from a more grounded, individual perspective. Exploring integration as a journey that young people are experiencing allows participants to be able to speak to their own experiences, without the presumption of moving towards a final integration destination, and without trying to immediately discern how their experiences can be universalized. The value in using this perspective is powerful, allowing for a more authentic and grounded analysis of where participants’ thoughts aligned, where they diverged, and what information is useful for host governments and other organizations, and what information might be useful for other young refugees. Integration as a journey is key because it also easily lends itself to an exploration of the structural elements of integration; essentially, within a person’s journey, analyzing how they sought work or experienced the refugee application process, enrich mainstream integration theories as well as bring new stories to the fore.

2.5.2 Elements of an Integration Journey

Every refugee experiences their integration journey differently and, though it is impossible to detail exactly what informs this process and how, I posit that there are certain elements, detailed above, that cross many journeys. Host Community Conditions, including housing, citizenship

(36)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, 24

and rights, safety, language, and employment, are realities that many refugees must face; as humans are social beings, refugees in Ecuador will likely develop personal connections, in the form of bonding, bridging, and linking connections. This research will explore if and how these connections are formed through the Institutional Landscape. Because these two spheres do not exist at the exclusion of the other – and because the interaction between the two can often change the whole experience – the space where they meet is where I posit refugees find themselves. Their integration journey affects and is affected by the intersection of these two realms – and, of course, their integration journey is affected by the ways that fellow nationals were and are being received in Ecuador. The multi-dimensional ways that these elements interplay with each other will be an important factor in understanding both the theoretical and empirical findings of this research.

(37)

Chapter 3: Ecuador, National and International Context, 25

 Honestly, I knew it wouldn’t be easy, but I never thought it would be so hard…Finding work isn’t easy, the economic situation is so hard, plus your own expectations on top of that – you arrive at the border and everything changes. You enter an emotional shock because you’re not used to living like this.  - Marta, 22, Colombia

3

Ecuador, National and International Context

A person’s journey to integration is complex, fluid, and difficult to entirely define. There are, though, certain elements that do play their part in the process, one of which is the setting, or the Host Community Conditions. In Ecuador, there are various histories, legal frameworks, and current realities that affect the way that refugees enter and experience integration.

3.1 Political Timelines

3.1.1 Political Timeline, International Agreements

Over the past century, Ecuador’s legal framework on refugee matters has evolved in ways that have a direct effect on those seeking asylum there today. At the most basic level, Ecuador is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Declaration, which defines “the term refugee and outlines the rights of the displaced, as well as the legal obligations of states to protect them.”58 A “refugee”, as accepted by the 145 countries that signed this Declaration, was defined as those fleeing persecution based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or membership in a social group; though widely recognized by most countries in the world, it can be a difficult legal standard to meet within the Latin American context.

In addition to the 1951 Declaration, Ecuador is also a signatory to the Cartagena Agreement on Refugees, a regional accord recognized by many Latin American countries. The Cartagena Agreement widened the definition of refugees to include those who are fleeing generalized violence and also explicitly stated minimum standards of protection, treatment, and assistance that states had to provide.59 This broader definition of the term was critically important because it addressed forced displacement and allowed for Colombians to be able to freely apply for refugee status based on the continued armed conflict in their country.

The legal rights of refugees in Ecuador were further solidified in 2004, when Ecuador, along with 20 other nations, signed the Mexico Plan of Action. The states that agreed to this plan committed to improving the protection of refugees and migrants, within their borders, on a

58_{UNHCR, “The 1951 Refugee Convention.”} 59_{Gutierrez, 4-5.}

(38)

Chapter 3: Ecuador, National and International Context, 26

continent-wide scale. The commitment took various forms throughout the region, from providing basic rights, to working towards naturalizing long-term resident refugees.60 Taken together, through these three international commitments, Ecuador was essentially accepting that refugees have a right to existence and protection within its borders and that, at least on paper, the state committed to safe-guarding those rights.

3.1.2 Political Timeline, National Commitments

As the new millennium progressed, Ecuador passed a few national laws that widened refugee rights; though not without contestation, this wider season of protective practices had a marked effect on refugees’ integration journeys today.

In 2008, coinciding with the election of new president Rafael Correa, Ecuador passed a new constitution whose elements had far-reaching consequences for refugees in the country. In a shift away from physical territory determining the rights a person has, the new constitution introduced the idea of “universal citizenship”, wherein a person has the inherent right to migrate and that “no human being shall be identified…as illegal because of [their] migration status.61_{Notably, the}

new constitution did not use the terms ‘migrant’ or ‘migration’, instead it used the terminology of ‘those in a situation of human mobility’.62_{The 2008 constitution essentially enshrined the}

right to movement, and the right of refugees to seek refuge and to claim rights in Ecuador. To put this commitment into action, directly following the passing of the new constitution, the Ecuadorian government, through the UNHCR, implemented the year-long ‘Enhanced

Registration Period’. This program was aimed at finding ‘invisible’ refugees – those who, though refugees in spirit who had fled their home country (generally Colombia) were not refugees because they had never filed the paper work to officially become so. They were thus deprived of the rights that came along with being a person in need of protection. The Enhanced Registration Period aimed to find and register refugees living along the northern border with Colombia,

60_{UHCHR Global Appeal 2007, 290.} 61_{Jacques P and G Ramirez, 179.} 62_{Jacques P and G Ramirez, 179.}