This article links two borderlands: the Italo-Slovene and the Slovene-Hungarian in the aftermath of the First World War. It focuses on the wartime refugees from the hinterlands of Trieste who, in accordance with agrarian reform, which the Yugoslav state began in 1919, were settled as colonists on the new Hungarian-South Slav border in the early 1920s. By using memoir literature and “ego documents,” the article tackles several aspects, including the refugee experience and social assistance during the First World War, the political motivation of the land reform, and the lived experiences of the colonists. In Yugoslavia, the agrarian problem was considered to be one of the most important issues facing the new state. The land reform aimed to solve social and national problems more than to improve the agricultural production of the state. In the example of the Prekmurje region, this article aims to show that interwar colonization succeeded in impacting the Hungarian–Slovene language border but failed miserably to ensure social transformation and security for the impoverished population.

Are people more inclined to help strangers when they’ve experienced similar hardships? People who have experienced displacement could be tremendous allies to the newly displaced, but they are relatively understudied. This study explores how people who have experienced wartime displacement respond to refugees fleeing new violence. I prime Serbs who experienced wartime displacement with either (1) their experience of displacement or (2) their ethnic identity. I then measure their altruism toward Syrian refugees traveling the Balkan route. Compared to participants who were reminded of their ethnic identity, participants who were reminded of their displacement were no more generous toward displaced Syrians. In fact, participants who experienced displacement, as well as wartime violence, were more generous toward the refugees when they were reminded of their ethnic identity. These results suggest that shared hardship alone may not necessarily enhance refugee inclusion. The results further suggest that interventions may benefit from calling out the differences between hosts and refugees—in this case, on the dimension of ethnicity. These findings caution humanitarians to construct their interventions with care.

This is a collection of original articles on diverse vulnerable populations in Japan in the wake of the new coronavirus pandemic. The effects of COVID-19 are felt differently, with some among us at much greater risk of infection due to preexisting health and welfare conditions. For others, perhaps more than the risk of infection, it is the precautions taken to mitigate the risk for the whole population, such as lockdowns and business closures, that have pulled away the already fragile safety net of state and civil society organization (CSO) support, leading to increased marginalization and social exclusion. The goal of this set of papers is to document the conditions of those that have been most directly affected by the virus and to provide background on the conditions that made them vulnerable in the first place, notably chronic conditions that are brought into more obvious relief in light of emergency measures. Each of the authors had a pre-established relationship with those affected populations and employed various ethnographic approaches, some face to face, others digitally via Zoom interviews and SNS exchanges. In this moment of what appears to be relative calm, we hope that our collection, quickly compiled in an attempt to capture the ever-changing situation, will give some insight into how those most vulnerable are faring in this time of crisis and provide information that will allow us to prepare better before the next wave comes our way.

In the context of the global increase in displaced people, spiking to nearly 80 million in these corona times, Japan has also seen a dramatic increase in the number of applications for refugee asylum since 2010. Despite increasing numbers of applications, Japan has not increased its refugee recognition rate. Unable to return home to sure persecution when rejected, many refugees end up in Japanese detention centers once their visa expires. Like jails, hospitals and detention centers everywhere, detention centers in Japan are crowded and dangerous and unable to protect the detainees inside. Japan has been slower than many other countries to take precautions, including temporary release. This paper outlines some of the policy shifts that have led to this dangerous situation, the conditions of anxiety inside the detention centers themselves in Tokyo and Ibaraki and the problematic situation of “provisional release” of some detainees into a corona-infested Japan without any safety net or protection. We hope to not only point out the immediate danger of infection under COVID-19, but also the larger dynamic of using detention to manage a refugee asylum system that has proven to be ineffective and unjust.

How does one prepare for flight? Is it possible to plan for such a disruptive event? This article explores a unique publication project established precisely for that purpose: migration manuals published by a German-Jewish organization to support the masses of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution in the 1930s. These manuals consolidated elaborate information from all over the world to prepare Jews for impending displacement. They encompassed not only essential details but also impressions, recommendations, and complaints. The manuals’ editors assembled reports from individuals already settled in refuge, generating a collaborative self-help effort on a global scale. Analyzing their content, this article shows that the process of guiding readers into forced migration extended in this case beyond technical migration procedures to include knowledge transfer about the politics of race, class, and gender, reflecting how German-Jewish refugees studied and situated themselves within these categories.

Throughout the Cold War, Yugoslavia was the only socialist country that participated in the Western-led international refugee regime and acted as a transit zone for refugees hoping to reach the Western Bloc. Those transiting were mainly, but not exclusively, escapees from various countries in the Soviet bloc. A few refugee groups also settled in Yugoslavia against the backdrop of shifts in international constellations, tense relationships with neighboring countries, and transnational mobilizations. This article will first investigate the dichotomy between transit and the few instances of refugees integrating into socialist Yugoslavia. Next, it will investigate the ease of the resettlement process by exploring how the length of time spent in the country was influenced by hierarchies among different refugee groups based on ethnic origin, political allegiances, class, and which opportunities for resettlement were available to whom. Finally, it will reflect on how the changing role of temporary refuge or permanent haven that Yugoslavia ascribed to itself was constructed and challenged by the host society, potential countries of resettlement, and the refugees themselves.

Commonsense morality suggests that an unjustly invaded democracy may conscript its own citizens and bar them from emigrating when such a policy is necessary to sustain resistance to the invader. What does this assumption regarding ‘internal conscription’ entail for ‘external conscription’ – for foreign countries who might close their borders to many citizens of the invaded democracy, to push them to fight? Could it have been morally appropriate for Ukraine’s neighbours, for instance, to close their borders to (many) Ukrainians at the onset of the Russian assault on Kyiv, with the aim of sustaining Ukraine’s resistance to Putin’s invasion? I take up such questions by examining the seeming discrepancy between internal and external conscription. I argue that, notwithstanding its surface appeal, a categorical divide between the two kinds of conscription is unwarranted. At the level of fundamental moral principles, the two stand and fall together.

This study examines biased media portrayals of refugees, focusing on the contrast between Ukrainian and MENA refugees. It proposes a “politics-media cycle of reinforcement” where political agendas influence media narratives, and vice versa. This cycle amplifies racial bias, impacting how refugees are perceived. The research employs a comparative content analysis of Western media and political rhetoric. Findings reveal a stark difference: Ukrainians are seen as deserving victims, while MENA refugees face negative stereotypes. Interviews with media professionals and analysts support these conclusions. The study exposes racialized “othering” that marginalizes specific refugee groups. It confirms a more sympathetic portrayal of Ukrainians, likely due to political and racial factors. This research highlights the need for a more balanced and empathetic approach to all refugees.

For refugee children, there are a number of risk factors for poor mental health and psychosocial well-being, many of them exacerbated for those refugee children living in low-resource settings. There is some evidence that caregiver warmth, parenting self-efficacy and positive relationships between caregivers and children can act as protective factors against poor mental health outcomes for children and adolescents. This study sought to assess if caregiver-level factors (parental warmth and affection, positive child-caregiver interaction and parenting self-efficacy) are protective for symptoms of child depression. To address these questions, a quantitative survey was implemented (n = 501) in the Imvepi refugee settlement in Uganda. Results indicated bivariate associations between several caregiver-level factors and child depression. However, in multivariate models, which included measures of economic stress, both parental warmth and affection and child-caregiver interaction were no longer significantly associated with child-reported depression. Parenting self-efficacy was found to be significantly associated with lower child-reported depression. These findings indicate the need to examine and explore how or if caregiver-level factors, such as warmth and parenting self-efficacy, as well as child-caregiver relationships overall, operate in the context of chronic stress. Whereas caregiver-level factors are potentially protective against poor mental health for refugee children, contextual factors, such as poverty and livelihood opportunities, may constrain the positive impacts of parenting.