Please beware that there is a contemporary political malady. Regrettably, there is the disconcerting malpractice whereby those who have been granted refuge or asylum in a neighbouring (or other) country are pushed back or repatriated to the country of origin or areas of danger, without adequate guarantees of safety and dignity.
At times, the amorphous situation is enmeshed in state-sponsored propaganda, which seeks to deceive or trick the public into believing that everything is fine and in accordance with international standards when it is not. In truth, such engineered action is nothing more than manipulation tantamount to governmental scam(s) deserving more than exposure.
There are several rules of thumb which can help counter that state-sponsored aberration.
First, it is essential to take stock of the human rights situation in the country of origin or area where a refugee might be repatriated before an act of repatriation is allowed to take place. If that situation is serious, the preferred pathway is that the refugee must not be returned to that country or area. There is already plenty of information offered by the UN on human rights situations all over the world and it is not difficult to assess them.
Second, non-democracies are often behind the outflow of their nationals to other countries for lack of political space, such as freedom of expression. Conversely, it is they who often leverage for the forced return of those who have sought refuge elsewhere so as to keep them under wraps.
However, sometimes there are also negative actions emanating from key democracies. The classic case is where a country with multiparty elections and democratic processes discriminates against minorities, causing forced displacements.
There is thus a need for vigilance against the causation behind these phenomena. The most logical way to deal with influxes into other countries is to offer them at least temporary refuge on the basis of shared responsibility between concerned states and other humanitarian actors, while not forgetting to tackle the root causes.
Third, internationally the term "refugee" is understood to cover those who flee from the country of origin over a well-founded fear of persecution. This covers the political dissident. In practice, victims of armed conflicts or serious human rights violations who flee across borders are also encompassed.
A refugee must be contradistinguished from an "illegal immigrant", for example, an economic migrant seeking work in another country without a visa. The latter is still protected by the country of origin, and the presumption is that the illegal immigrant can be returned safely to that country.
However, refugees are not protected by the country of origin for the reasons already mentioned. They should thus not be classified as illegal immigrants. Laws which protect human rights, such as laws against torture and enforced disappearances, must prevail over national immigration law.
Fourth, if a refugee is to be repatriated, there must be international monitoring. To be credible, a proposed repatriation must be subject to monitoring and review by a credible international agency to act as a check against arbitrary action on the part of the state authorities or the government pressing for the return.
An obvious agency on this front is the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). If a repatriation is executed without monitoring from this agency or another credible international body, it risks being a non-credible, subjective exercise.
Fifth, where the UNHCR has already interviewed or vetted the status of a person and classifies that person as a "Person of Concern"(POC), the authorities in the country of refuge should abide by that categorisation and not arrest or detain that person. That rubric -- POC -- implies that the person is equivalent to a refugee, a person needing international protection.
There must be no push-back of the POC unless or until there are credible arrangements to ensure a safe and dignified return based on the willingness of the POC with objective monitoring.
Sixth, when faced with a claim from state authorities that the refugee is a terrorist or threat to national security, the first reaction should be to question it; it is untenable unless and until there is convincing proof behind that claim.
Regrettably, that claim is invoked endemically by several governments to pressure countries of refuge to push back or repatriate refugees without justification, usually to punish or persecute them upon return.
Non-democracies also tend to classify all too easily political dissidents as terrorists or inciters of unrest, even though those dissidents are merely expressing opinions which are consonant with basic human rights. The initial presumption should be to follow the maxim: "innocent till proven guilty" and in keeping with international standards.
Seventh, international law already provides for a sense of balance and possibilities to exclude a person from refugee status. For example, the 1951 International Refugee Convention stipulates that a person cannot claim refugee status if that person has been involved in a serious, non-political crime in the country of origin.
However, this has to be interpreted objectively with the help of international monitoring, bearing in mind the human rights situation in the country concerned.
The peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression or assembly, online and offline, should not be classified as an act of terrorism or a breach of national security, even if it contradicts the official rhetoric unless it exceeds what is permissible under international standards, such as in the case of defamation or incitement to hatred leading to violence or discrimination.
Last but not least, high-ranking politicians who have the final say and are involved in those ambivalent repatriations should remind themselves that their parent or ancestor was probably a refugee and that humanitarian rules and practices were and are of benefit to everyone.
If they are involved in political or economic "quid pro quo" (give-and-take), which exchanges human lives and scams people for personal benefits, this is all the more reprehensible.
If this is a repeated act steeped in "déjà vu" (because this governmental scam has happened before), unremittingly, it deserves universal, visceral excoriation.